Re: What Graphics Adapter

• Previous message: maxx: "Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit distros"
• In reply to: Filipe Martins: "What Graphics Adapter"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:17:52 +0100

filipe.martins@free-spy.net (Filipe Martins) wrote:
> I'm thinking in purchasing a new (low cost - it doesn't have to be a
> very recent model) Graphics Adapter for my PC.

For a low-cost card I would recomend an ATI Radeon 9250.
 
> I want one that has proprietary Drivers for Linux, for maximum
> perfomance.

I suppose that you are aware that "low cost" and "maximum performance" is
hard to mix into the same card? The ATI binary drivers suck. The reason
that I still recomend the 9250 is that the 9250 is the card with the best
3D performance with opensource drivers that you are able to buy today.
There used to be cards like 8600 or 9100 with even better performance, but
those cards are no longer made. However, there is one known problem with
the 9250 and the opensource drivers: Several people have reported that
they are unable to use the DVI connector on the card. If you are planning
to use the VGA connector everything should be OK, but if you are planning
to use the DVI connector you might want to consider another card.

If you don't want to put more money into a mid-range or high-end card I
would instead recomend nVidia cards. They don't have any opensource
drivers for 3D, but their binary drivers are said to work better than ATIs.

Almost any card will give you good 2D performance with almost any driver
:-)

regards Henrik

-- 
The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
hc2(at)uthyres.com Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
info@k-soft.se info@k-software.biz info@webrider.ru root@localhost

• Previous message: maxx: "Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit distros"
• In reply to: Filipe Martins: "What Graphics Adapter"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]