View Full Version : [ubuntu] Graphic's Card

May 20th, 2008, 06:21 AM
Dear Tom,

I found this last night from another Ubuntu list that I'm a member of:

"The best "out-of-box" experience is going to be Intel graphics, because
the Intel drivers are FOSS, and relatively stable. Nvidia's binary-only
driver is generally considered to be of higher quality/stability than
ATI's binary-only driver (fglrx). However, ATI/AMD have now opened up
the specs for their hardware, and a number of folks are working on a new
FOSS ATI driver (radeonhd). I expect that within a year, this will put
ATI's out-of-box experience on-par with Intel's, as the radeonhd driver
gets more stable, and supports more hardware features (it doesn't yet
provide any 3d hardware acceleration, for example). Nvidia has shown no
interest in opening up their driver/specs, so I expect that Nvidia cards
will have the worst out-of-box experience for the foreseeable future."

That said.....if I remember, your Ratel box has an Intel graphics card, but the Wild Dog, has an N-Vidia graphics card.

If it's actually true that an Intel graphics card is better than an N-Vidia graphics card, what do you have say about the Ratel vs. the Wild Dog, as far as graphic cards go?

Thanks once again for your time Tom!

Orca Wave

May 20th, 2008, 03:25 PM
That quote is not talking about intel graphics *cards* verses nvidia graphics *cards*. It is talking about *drivers*.

The Wild Dog's nvidia card is a high-end, very reliable, very powerful card. Much more powerful than the Ratel's intel card.

If you used the open source nvidia driver (nv) on the Wild Dog, it would not perform as well as the Ratel's intel card using open source (FOSS) drivers. However, we don't use an open source driver for the Wild Dog. We use a proprietary nvidia driver that will smoke the Ratel's intel card hands down.