Re: Motherboards ?

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:08:09 +0000, Mark Hobley wrote:

If you were "very impressed" with the graphics from an onboard video
chip, you would be "flabbergasted" by the performance you can get from
even a low-end (much less a mid-to-high end) Nvidia card.

As a programmer, I am never impressed by devices that cannot be
programmed due to lack of documentation, so an Nvidia card would not
impress me.

What??? We're not talking about "programming" here, we're talking about
graphics performance. Try to focus a little.

I suppose I look at potential, rather than performance.

We're not talking about "potential", either. We are talking
*specifically* about *performance*, so perhaps that's what you should be
looking at...

However I did notice that the Intel worked extremely well when I ran
some 3d games on it.

What did you play? Doom2? Try running a modern game on such hardware,
and see if it works "extremely well".

If he wants any kind of useable accelerated 3D video, that's exactly
what he should do. Intel onboard graphics are a complete and utter

Really? I am shocked. Like I say, they worked well when I tried them,
but then again I haven't really spent any time looking at Nvidia
devices, Xboxes, and other such things, so maybe I don't know good
graphics when I see them.

You got this one right.

The user already has an Nvidia card, so he can stick with it, if he

Which is what he should do, if he wants any kind of decent graphics
performance. Oh wait, that's already been pointed out...

"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: