X.org's DRI vs. ATi's Proprietary driver (Was: "Re: ATI Livna driver package (Something has changed)")

[Claude Jones]

On Tue August 30 2005 1:34 am, Peter Gordon wrote:
> Claude Jones wrote:
> > On Mon August 29 2005 1:57 pm, Claude Jones wrote:
> > I'm running the  Radeon 9200SE card on both machines - both machines
> >
>  > seem to be running 3D.
>
> The 9200SE uses an RV280 series chip, which is well-supported by
> the Free drivers which are a part of the kernel and X.org's X11
> server implementation. Just for the sake of my curiosity, is there
> something special that ATi's proprietary driver gives you that you
> cannot get with the Free drivers? I think, considering that GNU/Linux
> is based on the principles of Free/open-source software, it would make
> sense to use Free drivers where supported, right? :-O
>

This is the first time I've seen any one say that the ATI drivers included in 
the kernel were well-supported. Everything I've otherwise read has said that 
the built in drivers were lacking in 3D/Open GL performance. I am no expert, 
and don't know anything about the RV280 chip. But, I am in video production, 
and I was concerned about maximizing my video configuration for that reason. 
The only reference I have are the screen savers, and my anecdotal experience 
is that the video performance is visibly better on some of the more complex 
screen savers with the ATI-fglrx driver then with the one built in to the 
kernel. 

-- 
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA