Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

Intel graphics vs. ATI

Posted Jun 13, 2007 17:16 UTC (Wed) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483)
In reply to: R500 initial driver release by mbottrell
Parent article: R500 initial driver release

"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
current computer. It's not time yet to buy a new computer, and it won't be
for a couple of years. Until then, I'll make do with my trusty 9250.
I even have two spares in case it breaks.

Unless ATI releases specs for its high-end cards, of course. I'd buy them
in a second. Do you hear that, ATI? I'm sitting here, waiting. With a pile
of money in my wallet. Waily waily waily, where shall I get a studly
graphics card with all this money? Oh, if only some company would offer
one to me. Then I could give them money for it. Hint hint.

(Log in to post comments)

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 experience
with 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 GMA

The 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.