| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
R500 initial driver releaseR500 initial driver releasePosted Jun 13, 2007 15:48 UTC (Wed) by mbottrell (guest, #43008)Parent article: R500 initial driver release
I gave up waiting for nVidia and ATI to get their act together and release OSS drivers. As such I've switched to an Intel GMA X3000. Sure it isn't the high performer that the latest nVidia or ATI card is.. .but it's open-sourced and works a treat. :-) Even better, it's bundled with the recent X.org releases Read more about Intel Graphics cards here. NB: I don't work for Intel.. just sick of the dodgy drivers ATI/nVidia release... whilst reverse engineering will provide 'a driver'... it's likely not to have the tweaks and speed-ups gamers require -- that will only come from details released by their makers.
(Log in to post comments)
Intel graphics vs. ATI Posted Jun 13, 2007 17:16 UTC (Wed) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link] "High performer" is relative. The best usable ATI card is the Radeon 9250,how does it compare against that? :)
I'm still waiting for Intel to make an AGP card that I can stick into my
Unless ATI releases specs for its high-end cards, of course. I'd buy them
Intel graphics vs. ATI Posted Jun 14, 2007 0:45 UTC (Thu) by vondo (guest, #256) [Link] You're looking for an AGP card? First, I don't think that'll happen. PCI-e would be great, though. Second, don't take this personally, but you don't sound like you'll drop a "pile of money" on a video card, but more like $100. That's the cost of the cards I buy too, so I'm not knocking it, but neither of us is dropping $500 every six months.
Intel graphics vs. ATI Posted Jun 14, 2007 1:09 UTC (Thu) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link] Ironically, my latest computer uses AGP because there weren't any PCI-e cards I could use :) Now that I have it, I can't upgrade without replacing the mainboard, and once I do that I'll want to replace everything anyway. And probably go with Intel for the graphics, instead of AMD/VIA like I usually do. (You hear that, AMD?)You're right, I wouldn't buy a new graphics card twice a year. I would buy one once, though, and I wouldn't mind spending several hundred euros on a high-end card that comes with full specs. I'm just not willing to budge on the spec issue. There's something deeply wrong with someone who wants to sell me hardware but refuses to tell me how to use it. I can't help it that all of the usable cards can be gotten for $20 on eBay, it's up to the manufacturers to change that :)
Intel graphics vs. ATI Posted Jun 14, 2007 2:18 UTC (Thu) by Tomasu (subscriber, #39889) [Link] Yeah, um, I recently just installed kubuntu after a horrible experiencewith CentOS and Gentoo. the r300 driver works absolutely excellent. 2d, 3d, xinerama, you name it. And I have a 9600xt. Quite a bit better than a 9250 :P
Intel graphics vs. ATI Posted Jun 14, 2007 8:08 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] The Intel X3000 should compare quite favorably versus the ATI 9250. If the 9250 performs better, it's because of the maturity of the drivers and not anything to do with the hardware.
The Intel onboard realy does well with 3D desktops. So if you want that, then Intel is the way to go. Also since Intel now employs a number of high profile X hackers, then if you want things to have the best chances of 'just work', then Intel is the ticket.
For gaming performance it should be adiquate for the vast majority of Linux games, but the lack of dedicated RAM for the video card hurts it.
Within a couple years Intel should have dedicated video cards out. High-end versions that are intended to compete head-to-head with the best from Nvidia released first, then cheaper models as time goes on. Huge 16-core monsters with completely programmable and x86-like. Something like that.
Of course the long-term situation is that eventually all but the very high end will be integrated directly into the main proccessor as a specialized core.
Intel graphics vs. ATI Posted Jun 15, 2007 11:45 UTC (Fri) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link] But will the high end Intel cards have open source drivers supported at the same level as their low end cards now? From what I have heard, the reason we will never see open source drivers from ATI and Nvidia is because of all the third party licensed code they rely on. Will Intel be able to develop all this code on their own?
Pledge to support Open Source graphics drivers Posted Jun 14, 2007 16:16 UTC (Thu) by themaxx (guest, #45767) [Link] I have setup a pledge on Pledgebank to let AMD and nVidia know that people are ready to vote with their wallets on this issue and buy graphic cards with open source drivers. I aim to reach 1000 signatures by year end. http://www.pledgebank.com/open3d So if you really want to show you support open source drivers, you can sign the pledge, and talk about it to people you know.
Pledge to support Open Source graphics drivers Posted Jun 14, 2007 20:46 UTC (Thu) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link] Thanks! I signed it :)
Intel graphics vs. ATI Posted Jun 22, 2007 7:49 UTC (Fri) by anton (subscriber, #25547) [Link] The best usable ATI card is the Radeon 9250.Looking at glxgears numbers as well as UT 2004 numbers, the X850XT and X800 are quite a bit faster. The Radeon 8500/9100 is also faster than the 9250, but has not been on sale (except used) for several years. The cards up to the 9250 have free 3D drivers thanks to information released by ATI, whereas the later cards have them thanks to reverse engineering. how does it compare against that?Glxgears numbers (24bpp): 6520fps Radeon X800 3503fps Radeon 9250 1550fps Intel G965/X3000 GMAThe numbers I have seen for the X3000GMA on Windows are also worse than for discrete graphics cards (so this is not a driver maturity issue). One contributing factor to that is the lower memory bandwidth of integrated graphics. If you buy a 9250 and want performance, get one with a 128-bit memory interface.
R500 initial driver release Posted Jun 13, 2007 17:32 UTC (Wed) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link] Seconded. My recently purchased laptop has Intel graphics - I skipped the NVidia upgrade. Ubuntu's latest live CD boots and runs flawlessly on it, including the spiffy wobbly windows, desktop cube, etc. The only binary driver is the Intel wireless and that's going away as they move the binary part into flash (I believe anyway).
Are you listening AMD/ATI and NVidia?? You LOST MY MONEY because you don't support open drivers for your hardware! I probably would have paid the extra $$$ for NVidia if open source drivers were available if only to get dedicated graphics ram instead of sharing graphics ram with main memory.
Pete
R500 initial driver release Posted Jun 13, 2007 21:13 UTC (Wed) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803) [Link] I would have got Intel graphics on my (3 month old) laptop, but couldn't find one that supported a 17" screen and WSXGA+ resolution. I don't know if the X3000 can do that. If so I'll keep it in mind for next time.
R500 initial driver release Posted Jun 13, 2007 21:42 UTC (Wed) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link] The laptop I have is 17" wide screen and runs native at 1920x1080 under Windoze. Under the Ubuntu live CD it ran 1600x1200 by default - I've heard that there is a tweak to the Intel graphics driver to let it do 1920x1080, but I haven't had a chance to track it down.
The graphics is Intel GMA 950.
R500 initial driver release Posted Jun 13, 2007 22:38 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] You can either use the "915resolution" tool, or use Intel's new modesetting driver.
For my computer, the modesetting driver worked perfectly for a wide DVI screen, but it had some problems doing PAL TV output, apparently the BIOS defaults to NTSC, and the modesetting driver doesn't know how to change that, giving me B/W output.
PAL output support on Intel chips Posted Jun 14, 2007 6:57 UTC (Thu) by keithp (subscriber, #5140) [Link] Just in case you're still reading down this far...
Fetch an updated version of xrandr from git://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/xorg/app/xrandr (yes, I should make an updated release). The minor updates there include the ability to set output properties that used named values, including the TV_FORMAT property which can be set to a huge list of possible formats, including three different PAL variants. You can also adjust the margins around the screen to align the displayed image with the monitor.
PAL output support on Intel chips Posted Jun 14, 2007 9:23 UTC (Thu) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] Nice! :)
I wont need it right now, as I only used the modesetting version for the widescreen monitor I set it up with at first (I'm using the computer as a server and mythtv frontend), so the old version is fine.
OTOH, the picture isn't perfectly aligned with the TV, so maybe I should play around with it.
Thanks for the heads up!
R500 initial driver release Posted Jun 13, 2007 21:19 UTC (Wed) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] Yes, I just bought a laptop with Intel chip too for exactly the samereason. For my desktop machine update I'll wait until there's an Intel card with separate RAM (current desktop machine uses G550).
My (Nokia) tablet computer has also currently an open source graphics
R500 initial driver release Posted Jun 14, 2007 8:09 UTC (Thu) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link] I switched my desktop computer's mainboard to have GMA X3000, but I still use my Radeon X800 as the main card, mainly since I'd optimally like to have a ADD2 board with _two_ DVI ports for the Intel graphics, and I haven't found one in Europe. Suggestions welcome. Yes, the Radeon has only one too and even if it had more it wouldn't be supported by the open source drivers.Also one thing that would probably be enough to get me throw the X800 away would be if 965-glsl branch would be merged to main MESA branch, since after that the Intel graphics drivers would have more features than what I have with ATI/AMD Radeon X800...
|
|
||||||||||||