Recommendations for Less than 100 for Ubuntu Development Box

C

choppedliver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
479
I have a dell quad core 2 duo inspiron 530 with 1 PCIe x16 slot

I have Ubuntu 8.10 running on it right now, with the built in video

I want to run two monitors on it, so I could just get another card with one dvi and run in concert with the onboard video, but I think i would rather just disable that and run a dedicated card with 2 dvi ports on my 1680x1050 dell monitors ( I have two already ). And honestly I don't see me buying a bigger monitor anytime soon. I am happy with these.

I might play games now and then, but I am not a heavy or even a moderate gamer. Still, I am not a fan of buying yesterday's technology, as I do want to have the latest bells and whistles available to me in case I need/want to use them.

More important to me is it doesn't heat up my room like a space heater. Blu ray acceleration would be nice for future proofing as well as direct x 10. I do have vista dual booting on this machine.

i was considering something from the radeon 4000 series.

Suggestions ?
 
Those are good deals, and I have been looking at those already. What would I miss going from the 4000 series of radeons to the 3000 series?
 
Not really concerned with AA since I dont play many games. I was concerned that the 3870 is going to generate a ton of heat. My office is hot enough as it is
 
check out the 2600xt. It should be plenty for what you need. It is yesterday's technology however. You could also check out the 4830.
 
The HD 3870 is not a hot card, but the powercolor card does have a loud fan without any fan control, I used a HIS HD3870 before and it was cooler than my previous 7950GT and at idle it is silent too.

My friend has the Powercolor card and at idle it is much louder than the stock cooler on my HIS, the Powercolor uses a different BIOS since it is an OCed card and with that BIOS, the card won't downclock at idle so it could generate more heat than my HIS.

Edit: The Powercolor card in the link above is not an OCed card like my friend's card so it could use the stock BIOS which will downclock the card at idle. However the cooler is still the same and it is loud without any possible fan control.
 
"4670 is a good choice too http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814121274. 80 bucks. It doesn't require a external power source either, it performs just about as a good as a 3870 with no AA bug either.
"

Thanks for the comment. That one doesnt have two dvi ports, but other 4670s do. Is there any reason you chose asus over the others? personal experience?

Do all 4670s have the "no external power necessary"?

Thanks for the help guys.
 
Well that one has a 10 dollar mir. So I just grabbed it. A few others do also. And yes all 4670s do not need a external power source.
 
well, i'll try to taylor my response toward the linux side. ati drivers in linux (like most drivers in linux) are crap. pure garbage. don't even bother with them. if you even manage to get 3d acceleration working (which, admittedly, is getting easier these days) the performance will be awful.

for 3d performance in linux, you absolutely HAVE to go nvidia. it's that simple. don't listen to anyone who recommends you an ati card for linux. they're lying to you. this article explains in detail why:

http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/06/nitty-gritty-shit-on-open-source.html

if you're going to do light gaming and mostly just want two displays, i would recommend either the 8600gt or 8600gts, which there are tons of deals for:

8600gts for $40 shipped AR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130394

similarly performing but newer 9500gt for $50 shipped AR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130378

as for higher priced / better performing cards, i would go with some kind of 9800gt for about $100 or so. those aren't hard to come by on the egg.
 
Now thats helpful!

Didnt know that ATI linux drivers sucked ass. I have a mobile quadro in my laptop and the nvidia driver works great. I can do dual screens with compiz-fusion and its just rocks
 
With those suggestions, Im leaning towards the 9500gt, I should be able to do some decent gaming if I should want even with modern titles shouldnt I? Im only running 1680x1050, and I really dont care about 4xAA and such
 
stainremover said:
well, i'll try to taylor my response toward the linux side. ati drivers in linux (like most drivers in linux) are crap. pure garbage. don't even bother with them. if you even manage to get 3d acceleration working (which, admittedly, is getting easier these days) the performance will be awful.

for 3d performance in linux, you absolutely HAVE to go nvidia. it's that simple. don't listen to anyone who recommends you an ati card for linux. they're lying to you. this article explains in detail why:
Click to expand...

Absolutely, 100% wrong. ATI's Linux drivers are *BETTER* than Nvidia's overall. The ATI Linux drivers are much easier to install, tie in to the package manager of the distro, and have better 2d performance (which for someone who isn't going to be gaming is more important). Nvidia does have the 3D performance edge, but it isn't by very much.

And had you carefully read that article, you would have noticed that the author stated that the OFFICIAL ATI drivers DO support the features he was talking about, but he inexplicably ignored that official ATI drivers and instead decided to rant on how the official nvidia drivers are better than the unofficial open source ati drivers - well no shit sherlock, that is pretty obvious, especially since the open source ati driver doesn't have 3d support yet.

choppedliver said:
With those suggestions, Im leaning towards the 9500gt, I should be able to do some decent gaming if I should want even with modern titles shouldnt I? Im only running 1680x1050, and I really dont care about 4xAA and such
Click to expand...

I use a 4850 in Linux with ZERO problems. It runs great, no issues. Don't listen to the FUD. Check out http://www.phoronix.com/ for some actual, hard numbers and reliable information. They have a review of the 4830 here: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=sapphire_hd4830&num=4 and as you can clearly see, it is no slouch in terms of Linux gaming and 3D support.
 
choppedliver said:
With those suggestions, Im leaning towards the 9500gt, I should be able to do some decent gaming if I should want even with modern titles shouldnt I? Im only running 1680x1050, and I really dont care about 4xAA and such
Click to expand...

The 9500GT is very, very weak. The 4670 is going to be faster. That said, neither are really well equipped for 1680x1050. A 4830 or 4850 or 9600GT or 9800GT would be a better fit for that res (or if you can find a cheap, used 8800GTS or 8800GT - that would work too) - with the 4850 being the fastest of those choices.
 
kllrnohj said:
Absolutely, 100% wrong. ATI's Linux drivers are *BETTER* than Nvidia's overall. The ATI Linux drivers are much easier to install, tie in to the package manager of the distro, and have better 2d performance (which for someone who isn't going to be gaming is more important). Nvidia does have the 3D performance edge, but it isn't by very much.

And had you carefully read that article, you would have noticed that the author stated that the OFFICIAL ATI drivers DO support the features he was talking about, but he inexplicably ignored that official ATI drivers and instead decided to rant on how the official nvidia drivers are better than the unofficial open source ati drivers - well no shit sherlock, that is pretty obvious, especially since the open source ati driver doesn't have 3d support yet.
Click to expand...

ATI has come a long way with thier drivers but they are not better than NVIDIAS. I think you will have a damned tough time proving that one. Its really not FUD, ATI has earned thier bad reputation over the years and have just recently started pulling thier heads out of their asses. The ATI drivers are getting better but they are still shit, not that Nvidias are really all that much better but they are for now.

I have 2 machines in this house running linux, one with an 8800GT one with an X1950PRO you will never convince me that the ATI drivers are even close to Nvidias.
 
pfunkman said:
ATI has come a long way with thier drivers but they are not better than NVIDIAS. I think you will have a damned tough time proving that one. Its really not FUD, ATI has earned thier bad reputation over the years and have just recently started pulling thier heads out of their asses. The ATI drivers are getting better but they are still shit, not that Nvidias are really all that much better but they are for now.

I have 2 machines in this house running linux, one with an 8800GT one with an X1950PRO you will never convince me that the ATI drivers are even close to Nvidias.
Click to expand...

And I went from a 7950GT to a 4850. I've used them both, the ATI drivers are better in more areas than nvidias. Nvidia is currently only better in 3D performance, and since there aren't any demanding Linux games, that doesn't really matter all that much. ATI's Linux drivers also have the once a month schedule that the Windows drivers do. The 8.11s are already available for Linux.

But please, why do you think the ATI drivers are shit? What doesn't work for you? Don't just call them shit without providing at least a reason as to why you think so, otherwise you are just spreading FUD, plain and simple.
 
kllrnohj said:
Absolutely, 100% wrong. ATI's Linux drivers are *BETTER* than Nvidia's overall. The ATI Linux drivers are much easier to install, tie in to the package manager of the distro, and have better 2d performance (which for someone who isn't going to be gaming is more important). Nvidia does have the 3D performance edge, but it isn't by very much.

And had you carefully read that article, you would have noticed that the author stated that the OFFICIAL ATI drivers DO support the features he was talking about, but he inexplicably ignored that official ATI drivers and instead decided to rant on how the official nvidia drivers are better than the unofficial open source ati drivers - well no shit sherlock, that is pretty obvious, especially since the open source ati driver doesn't have 3d support yet.



I use a 4850 in Linux with ZERO problems. It runs great, no issues. Don't listen to the FUD. Check out http://www.phoronix.com/ for some actual, hard numbers and reliable information. They have a review of the 4830 here: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=sapphire_hd4830&num=4 and as you can clearly see, it is no slouch in terms of Linux gaming and 3D support.
Click to expand...


Im glad you pointed me out to the phoronix site. Looks like I am buying at a time when the tides are changing in the ATI vs Nvidia debate. As long as the give me good 2d, ok 3d, easy to install and stable, I can deal with it. If i want kick ass 3d for games, I do have my vista partition i can boot into.
 
kllrnohj said:
Absolutely, 100% wrong. ATI's Linux drivers are *BETTER* than Nvidia's overall. The ATI Linux drivers are much easier to install, tie in to the package manager of the distro, and have better 2d performance (which for someone who isn't going to be gaming is more important). Nvidia does have the 3D performance edge, but it isn't by very much.

And had you carefully read that article, you would have noticed that the author stated that the OFFICIAL ATI drivers DO support the features he was talking about, but he inexplicably ignored that official ATI drivers and instead decided to rant on how the official nvidia drivers are better than the unofficial open source ati drivers - well no shit sherlock, that is pretty obvious, especially since the open source ati driver doesn't have 3d support yet.



I use a 4850 in Linux with ZERO problems. It runs great, no issues. Don't listen to the FUD. Check out http://www.phoronix.com/ for some actual, hard numbers and reliable information. They have a review of the 4830 here: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=sapphire_hd4830&num=4 and as you can clearly see, it is no slouch in terms of Linux gaming and 3D support.
Click to expand...

the official ati drivers have SOME of the features, not all:
Publishing documentation and having paid fulltime developers in house has not fixed this problem for either ATI or Intel. (Full disclosure, the closed-source ATI drivers have support for some of these features but no freetard is interested in them anymore).
Click to expand...
and, what i believe to be the biggest problem (having to use AIGLX as a workaround for rendering) is still present in the ATI drivers.

i find ati's packaging to be abysmal. they don't tie in to the packaging manager of the distro, that's complete b.s. your distro of choice may provide a package in their repo, but that isn't tying in to the packaging manager and says nothing about ati or the quality of their drivers, but rather is a statement for the quality of the distro.

additionally, that version almost always stays the same between releases of the distro, i.e. you won't be able to get newer versions of the driver without reinstalling or upgrading your entire install. ati's driver installer will generate a package for your distro, but you still have to do that yourself and it doesn't always work, i tried it on three different distros and it worked once (failed in ubuntu 8.04 LTS and opensuse 11). and it turns out that when you install the driver directly (i.e. use the script) and when you generate the package, you get different results. so much for that option.

aside from difficulties installing, the drivers themselves are pretty awful. i frequently would get random crashes whenever i had 3d acceleration enabled: the xserver just crashes and restarts, screen hangs, etc. sure, some of it may not be ati's fault, but i never had these issues with nvidia drivers, or intel drivers for that matter.

you're right that ati drivers have improved greatly over the last year. a year ago you wouldn't even have made that post. but nvidia drivers are still better, especially after that fix for kde4 performance that just came out a couple weeks ago or the opengl 3.0 support.

edit: also, i also forgot to mention the most important part in regards to this thread: nvidia's twinview. twinview is nvidia's way of managing multiple displays. it's leaps and bounds better than that awful xrandr that everybody has been raving about. if the second r is important to you (first r is resize, second r is rotate), you might prefer it over nvidia's twinview, but unless you're rotating your display every other day, twinview is a much better solution. i was able to do things in twinview i was never able to do using xrandr: getting the taskbar to extend across both desktops and most impressively, disabling the display on my laptop and just using an external monitor - on the fly, no restarting necessary. this is important because if you have to restart, the settings are written down somewhere like your xorg.conf, which means when you're done, you have to remember to change them back otherwise the next time you turn on your laptop without the external display, you might end up stuck with no X and have to drop down to terminal
 
kllrnohj said:
But please, why do you think the ATI drivers are shit? What doesn't work for you? Don't just call them shit without providing at least a reason as to why you think so, otherwise you are just spreading FUD, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Its not that just ATI drivers are shit both are shit but NVIDIA is the better of the 2.

ATI drivers are a pain in the ass to install compared to the Nvidia drivers. Claiming any different is a flat out lie.

The performance blows and there are still quite a few things that just dont work right with the ATI drivers that work fine with nvidia drivers. (Wine apps, compiz etc.)

how about you do a little better than "its better except 3D performance" I dont see you giving any reasons yourself. You go to any linux forum on the planet (Including phoronix) and youll get the exact same response for a reason.

That may be changing in the near future but it has not happened yet.
 
Wow this has really turned into an ATI vs Nvidia debate. Sorry about that. I am thinking for what I use Linux for, either will work. I like that the new radeons have a reduced power requirement. They have gotten great reviews too. But I like that Nvidia has always been the Linux card of choice. Whether it remains that way or not is anyones guess. But its not like ATI will not work with Linux. Nvidial will "probably" work better, but will I even notice the difference? Probably not. My laptop quadro 140 works great in twinview right out of the ubuntu 8.10 box so that make me feel a little safer with Nvidia.

I guess it comes to price and power really. This thing has a stock dell power supply. Im sure it probably is not going to handle a power hog. The radeons are great performers for the power requirement, and are pretty inexpensive too. When is Nvidia due for a refresh?
 
Ok, I decided on an EVGA 9500GT with 1GB. I really wanted one of the new Radeon 4000 series cards, but in the end couldnt justify it.

Why this choice ( model and brand ):
-EVGA has a good reputation.
-1 GB was only a few bucks more than 512mb.
-It doesnt need external power
-It wont generate a ton of heat
-It doesnt need a lot of space in my box
-It should be pretty quiet even though it has a small fan
-Its cheap ($59) after rebate. So if I regret my decision later I havent lost a lot of money
-It will play most games at decent speeds if you turn down the resolution and eye candy. Remember Im not a hard core gamer. Im not even a medium core gamer. I have seen links to people even playing Crysis on it at low settings.
-The general consensus is that Nvidia has had a better rep for linux drivers in the past. Ati is making strides but at this price I can buy a nice ATI later if/when ATI's driver reputation with Linux improves.
-Nvidia supports this model. The 9600GT is NOT supported in Linux by Nvidia. Only the higher performing cards are, and those are big power hungry monsters and too expensive for me.

It should be here next week, I will let you guys know how it turns out. Thanks for the help!
 
choppedliver said:
Ok, I decided on an EVGA 9500GT with 1GB. I really wanted one of the new Radeon 4000 series cards, but in the end couldnt justify it.

Why this choice ( model and brand ):
-EVGA has a good reputation.
-1 GB was only a few bucks more than 512mb.
-It doesnt need external power
-It wont generate a ton of heat
-It doesnt need a lot of space in my box
-It should be pretty quiet even though it has a small fan
-Its cheap ($59) after rebate. So if I regret my decision later I havent lost a lot of money
-It will play most games at decent speeds if you turn down the resolution and eye candy. Remember Im not a hard core gamer. Im not even a medium core gamer. I have seen links to people even playing Crysis on it at low settings.
-The general consensus is that Nvidia has had a better rep for linux drivers in the past. Ati is making strides but at this price I can buy a nice ATI later if/when ATI's driver reputation with Linux improves.
-Nvidia supports this model. The 9600GT is NOT supported in Linux by Nvidia. Only the higher performing cards are, and those are big power hungry monsters and too expensive for me.

It should be here next week, I will let you guys know how it turns out. Thanks for the help!
Click to expand...

Im pretty sure the extra 512 on that card is worthless. I highly doubt the card itself has the horsepower to really utilize it. The 9600GT is supported by nvidias linux drivers i dont know where you got that info but its just plain wrong

At least you can step up later if you want.
 
Depending on the price you are paying for that 95, I would look at the 96 as an investment. The 96 is years better than that 95 and will last a long time from the sounds of your needs. Also, If you do stick with the 95, you should still like it, it wont be too bad for gaming. I was running SLI 85s which bench the same as an 86gts and Ill say it should do fin for you at that res

edit** and yes, the extra 512 is junk, it may actually cost you a frame or two, especially if you OC

either way, good luck!
 
pfunkman said:
Im pretty sure the extra 512 on that card is worthless. I highly doubt the card itself has the horsepower to really utilize it. The 9600GT is supported by nvidias linux drivers i dont know where you got that info but its just plain wrong

At least you can step up later if you want.
Click to expand...

Well I must have been looking at an older cached page or something. I saw a list on nvidia's site that did not show 9600gt available. I think I saw it in a forum somewhere and I probably didnt see when the list was updated.

Regardless,I did not want to have a card requiring external power.

The extra 512mb cant hurt. It might not help but it was only a few bucks.
 
Ok you guys have me reconsidering...

I can cancel and get the evga 512mb 9600gt for 84.99 a/r
I currently have ordered the evga 1gig 9500gt for 59.99 a/r

So for 25 bucks I can get a much faster, hotter card. It requires 2 slots , and external power.

I currently have a quad core 2.4ghz q6600
with the stock dell liteon ps-3561-2 350watt p/s
a sata 640gig hd
and a dvd burner. So I am not exactly pushing a lot of stuff.

I can probably deal with the extra heat ( i hate my office getting hot ), but will that 350watt ps push a 9600gt? With the 9500 gt I dont have to guess. I have till tomorrow to cancel or change my order.
 
Now Im wondering if the 9600gt will even fit. The comments on newegg show it to be very large

Here is the pics of the card HERE

And here is a pic of the inside of my case
100_03771.jpg


I am concerned it will hit the ram clips. It may sit high enough to clear I cant really tell
 
choppedliver said:
Now Im wondering if the 9600gt will even fit. The comments on newegg show it to be very large

Here is the pics of the card HERE

And here is a pic of the inside of my case
100_03771.jpg


I am concerned it will hit the ram clips. It may sit high enough to clear I cant really tell
Click to expand...

It will fit, no problem. You will just need to remove your videocard to work with the Ram.
 
Ok assuming it does, now what about the power requirements? Im not packing a big power supply here :)

Looking at the EVGA website, they recommend a 400 watt power supply for the 9600gt and a 350/400 watt for the 9500gt. I realize they are probably erring on the side of caution.
 
choppedliver said:
Ok assuming it does, now what about the power requirements? Im not packing a big power supply here :)
Click to expand...

Can you take a picture of the PSU label? That'll tell us whether or not that 400W PSU has enough amperage on the +12V rail to power the card.
 
25A on the +12V rail is enough but barely. However the main problem is whether or not that PSU is actually capable of providing 25A on the +12V rail. So far, no info says it can. I recommend picking up a new PSU to be on the safe side. This PSU is a cheap but decent choice:
Antec Earthwatts 500W PSU - $50
 
I checked out that power supply. Did some research on it, and you are right it does sound like a great deal. I cancelled my order and was going to order a 9600GT and the Antec Earthwatts 500. I had them in my shoppinc cart...

Then I changed my mind. I wanted to spend less than 100 bucks originally, but suddenly Im buying a $100 card and a $50 power supply. I'm going the wrong direction!

Soooo, I decided to go back to the 9500GT, but I dug a little deeper.

The 1 GB version everyone seems to think the extra half gig is useless on a 9500, so hey, $10 bucks is ten bucks right?

Then I looked a the 512mb versions, and there is two : one with DDR2 and one with DDR3

Looking on the manufacturers website, their is a big difference in bandwidth 64% increase I would think make much bigger difference than the 1gig of DDR2 at 1000mhz

RAM Speed 1600Mhz (effective) 1000Mhz (effective)
Memory Bandwidth 25.6 GB/s 16.0 GB/s

So I dropped the 1gig DDR2 and picked up the 512mb DDR3.

So bottomline, I save $4 and squeak out a little bit more bandwidth :)
 
Danny Bui said:
Just don't expect much out of that 9500GT. There's a reason why it costs ~$65 whereas the 9600GT costs ~$90:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-9500-gt-review/

Oh just found out about this deal right now:
Antec Earthwatts EA380 380W PSU - $40 with Free shipping.

It's about $20 cheaper than the EA500 once you factor in shipping. Still a great quality PSU and more than enough power for your current rig.
Click to expand...

Well the earthtech is definitely I am going to keep filed away in the "damn good deal " category if I need it. I read that review you linked to, and it sounds like exactly what I need.
 
i think your 350w dell should be able to handle your 9600gt. if a power supply isn't able to handle the rated output, usually that is a result of bumping up the wattage for better marketing. but since the psu is an oem, there's really no gain from rating a power supply higher than it actually is.

if you're still considering the 9600gt, you can try just googling your dell and see if someone else has dropped in a 9600gt. you can also look at the product page (or the old product pdf if your dell isn't for sale anymore) and see what kind of upgrades dell offered on it. that should give you an idea of what kind of output your psu can handle.
 
stainremover said:
i think your 350w dell should be able to handle your 9600gt. if a power supply isn't able to handle the rated output, usually that is a result of bumping up the wattage for better marketing. but since the psu is an oem, there's really no gain from rating a power supply higher than it actually is.

if you're still considering the 9600gt, you can try just googling your dell and see if someone else has dropped in a 9600gt. you can also look at the product page (or the old product pdf if your dell isn't for sale anymore) and see what kind of upgrades dell offered on it. that should give you an idea of what kind of output your psu can handle.
Click to expand...

I dont know why I didnt think of that. I googled and came up with several threads saying it handles a 9600gt easily. I also found that you can easily mod it to 3gz on air. Wooo, bonus! :)

GRRRRRRRRRRR, you guys make too much damn sense! Ok screw it, If I can run a 9600GT for 30 bucks more , and NOT replace the CPU, then I will.

Anyone know what the difference between these two 9600GT's is? HERE

The newegg matrix shows one is opengl 2.1 and one is 2.0. Not sure if thats correct. I couldnt find anything on evga site for both part numbers
 
pfunkman said:
ATI drivers are a pain in the ass to install compared to the Nvidia drivers. Claiming any different is a flat out lie.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. The Nvidia drivers force you to drop to a command line with X stopped. The ATI drivers you can double click in X and follow a simple installer (complete with a GUI and everything) - just like one would in Windows. Or you can have the driver generate packages for your system and then install those.

The ATI driver installation is leaps and bounds beyond nvidia's old school ncurses interface. Its a flat out lie to even try to argue anything different.

The performance blows and there are still quite a few things that just dont work right with the ATI drivers that work fine with nvidia drivers. (Wine apps, compiz etc.)
Click to expand...

That is crap. The ATI drivers work perfectly with both Wine apps, Compiz, and Wine+Compiz. As for performance, that is BS too. Go look at actual benchmarks on sites like phoronix. The ATI drivers are not "slow" - at least, not compared to the nvidia drivers.

stainremover said:
i find ati's packaging to be abysmal. they don't tie in to the packaging manager of the distro, that's complete b.s. your distro of choice may provide a package in their repo, but that isn't tying in to the packaging manager and says nothing about ati or the quality of their drivers, but rather is a statement for the quality of the distro.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Look at the --buildpkg argument to the ATI driver installer. I don't know how many distros it has packages for off hand, but it is quite a few. Off hand I know it supports SUSE 10.2, 10.1, 10.0 (32- and 64-bit variants of each), and the last 4 or 5 flavors of Ubuntu.


I would again encourage you to skip the 9500GT. The 4670 is only a couple of $$ more and is much, much faster. Here is an MSI for $65 AR: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127383
 
kllrnohj said:
Bullshit. The Nvidia drivers force you to drop to a command line with X stopped. The ATI drivers you can double click in X and follow a simple installer (complete with a GUI and everything) - just like one would in Windows. Or you can have the driver generate packages for your system and then install those.

The ATI driver installation is leaps and bounds beyond nvidia's old school ncurses interface. Its a flat out lie to even try to argue anything different.
Click to expand...

The difference being when you install the Nvidia drivers your done, thats it. When you install the ATI binary you move on to the workarounds to get everything working properly.

kllrnohj said:
That is crap. The ATI drivers work perfectly with both Wine apps, Compiz, and Wine+Compiz. As for performance, that is BS too. Go look at actual benchmarks on sites like phoronix. The ATI drivers are not "slow" - at least, not compared to the nvidia drivers.
Click to expand...

If wine and compiz are working with the proprietary drivers right out of the box than that is a very new trend.

kllrnohj said:
I would again encourage you to skip the 9500GT. The 4670 is only a couple of $$ more and is much, much faster. Here is an MSI for $65 AR: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127383
Click to expand...

I agree on this the difference in performance is well worth any effort involved. But what are the poer requiremenst of that card compared to the 9500?
 
pfunkman said:
The difference being when you install the Nvidia drivers your done, thats it. When you install the ATI binary you move on to the workarounds to get everything working properly.
Click to expand...

With the 4850 on my desktop I was done after installing the driver - no tweaks or hacks. With the mobile firegl V5200 in my laptop, I was done after installing the driver - no tweaks or hacks (suspend/resume worked out of the box, too)

I did, however, have to do some work to clean up the crap the nvidia driver left behind after I told it to uninstall.

If wine and compiz are working with the proprietary drivers right out of the box than that is a very new trend.
Click to expand...

Its worked for at least the 3 or 4 months (which is when I got my 4850)...

I agree on this the difference in performance is well worth any effort involved. But what are the poer requiremenst of that card compared to the 9500?
Click to expand...

According to http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3405&p=9 the 4670 uses 14w less power at idle, and only 6w more at load. So, definitely worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top