current state of ati graphics

[Bill Davidsen]

Ian Malone wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm looking to upgrade my graphics card and for the past few
> iterations have gone with Nvida, mostly because they provided a
> working linux driver with 3D acceleration; most people I knew with ATI
> chipsets had problems with their drivers at one time or another (and
> for a long time only older cards were supported).  Since AMD have
> apparently released the specs needed to write an open driver for them
> I thought it might be worth supporting them this time around, but I'm
> not sure what the current state of ATI support looks like. I'd guess
> there has been long enough for an accelerated driver to make it into
> the kernel, but I see that there is also a recent release of their
> proprietary driver.  What are people's recent experiences with ATI?  I
> wouldn't be looking for the highest end card, just something that can
> happily run compiz and flash videos 1280x1024.  The nvidia I'm
> considering are around the 8500 / 9400 mark.
> 
> Thanks for your time.
> 
With any non-FOSS driver you accept that if you have a problem there are a fair 
percentage of developers who will not look at dump from a tainted kernel. The 
most recent FC10 drivers seem to work reliably (that was NOT true with the 
initial install), but are not accelerated. I believe my last look showed 
radeondrmfb, and I considered flgrx but decided reliable was enough, I don't run 
games or video benchmarks on my laptop, just boring work stuff, which is fast 
enough. It will run flash 1280x800 without a problem.


-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot