Slashdot Mirror
Radeon 8500/GeForce3 Ti500 comparison
RainDog writes: "The Tech Report has put together a pretty detailed comparison of ATI's Radeon 8500 and NVIDIA's GeForce3 Titanium 500 graphics parts. Despite being incredibly thorough, the review is also a pretty entertaining read. Definitely the best comparison of these cards I've seen to date."
You obviously have no idea how NVidia's cards work. Every NVidia chipset, on every platform, uses the same driver code. This totally negates points 4 and 5, and effectively negates point 1 and 6, since as long as they make windows dirvers, the cost to port them to linux is almost zero for them, so they'll probably continue to do it. Point 4 makes no sense, since the kernel loader is open source, and compiles on any kernel. As for point 2, the drivers support the full range of features on the card (including TV out with no gay macrovision *ahem ATI lovers*), so what more could I add? As for point 3 and 5, it is up to the XFree86 team to make sure that binary XFree drivers work with new XFree versions, not NVidia.
So that pretty much destryos your whol arguement. Any more FUD?
>You obviously have no idea how NVidia's cards work.
You obviously don't know how to set up a proper counter argument.
Let's pick it apart, shall we?
>Every NVidia chipset, on every platform, uses the same driver code.
Yes. But closed source.
>This totally negates points 4 and 5, and effectively negates point 1 and 6,
It does? You mean because their cards all use the same closed-source code they can avoid releasing updates for the kernel and X?
Wrong. Here's the counterpoint: The VGA code in the kernel is the same on every card. Yet it has undergone updates. VGA is supported by many more cards yet it made no difference. Therefore points 4 and 5 stand as regards to Nvidia cards.
Why do you think they will keep updating their closed-source drivers because their cards are the same? You are making no sense. If they drop linux, they will drop it. Plonk! No support for any cards, old or new. Points 1 and 6 stand.
>since as long as they make windows dirvers, the cost to port them to linux is almost zero for them, so they'll probably continue to do it.
Ahh, ok. I see. You are saying that because the effort involved in porting from one to the other is zero they will continue in the future.
You obviously have no idea about the political decisions companies have been known to make. Reply with business sense next time.
>Point 4 makes no sense, since the kernel loader is open source, and compiles on any kernel.
You obviously don't know how the kernel works! If they change it enough, trust me, there's absolutely no way that closed source module will fit.
Give it a couple of years. Tell me if kernel 3.0 will compile against the first revision of the closed source drivers Nvidia released, using whatever hacking you need in the open source section. If it's successful, tell me if your kernel panics when you insert the module. I think it'll break horribly.
>As for point 2, the drivers support the full range of features on the card
That's just peachy. I guess you put 100% trust in Nvidia, even though they've been known to perform the same dirty tricks as ATi to fake performance in their cards.
Personally, if I can't see it work, I won't trust it.
>(including TV out with no gay macrovision *ahem ATI lovers*)
Great. And when they decide to change that your recourse is... ? Run an outdated version of the code?
>so what more could I add?
Counterpoints that make sense, perhaps?
>As for point 3 and 5, it is up to the XFree86 team to make sure that binary XFree drivers work with new XFree versions, not NVidia.
Now you really show you don't have a clue.
XFree has no obligation to keep their software compatible with outdated binaries. Look how long DOS was supported in the MS Windows line and just see what it did for them (ugggh hellish nightmares coming to mind)...
Its called X, not XP. Get with the times. Continuing support for binaries in Linux was dead from the start.
>So that pretty much destryos your whol arguement. Any more FUD?
No, but then again I was right to start with and there's no FUD in my argument. Any more lies from you?
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC