As a general rule, which has the most units of speed per dollars spent, open source AMD or Intel drivers. How big is the gap?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Most for your money, open source AMD or Intel drivers?
Collapse
X
-
Both lack something, as mentioned AMD has no video decoding accel, but Intel has problems with their texture filtering quality for example. IIRC Ivy improved that, but it's still a lot worse than even old AMD cards.
On raw speed per buck AMD should win.
Comment
-
Well when you compare the cpus with gpu integrated i would say intel wins for linux support. Also the cpu part is usually faster with intel. For desktop systems that does not really matter, you can add any card, but dont forget that highend parts are no good idea to run with oss drivers. Those do not provide the usual performance, need usually much more energy - compared to binary drivers. And if you use binary drivers well then amd is the wrong choice anyway.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kano View PostWell when you compare the cpus with gpu integrated i would say intel wins for linux support. Also the cpu part is usually faster with intel. For desktop systems that does not really matter, you can add any card, but dont forget that highend parts are no good idea to run with oss drivers. Those do not provide the usual performance, need usually much more energy - compared to binary drivers. And if you use binary drivers well then amd is the wrong choice anyway.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Prescience500 View PostUnless you intend to use it temporarily until the open source driver improves some more.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RealNC View PostI've been temporary for 5 years. As of 2012, I went NVidia and am now permanent, temporary is now kaputt. Life it too short and full with more important matters than wait/care for open drivers.
What would really interest me these days would be a NVIDIA Tegra 3 based netbook.... or a new Tegra based on ARMv8 core.
Comment
-
Comment