Prev: Graphics cards for Linux
Next: How2 'dd' bootable-CD's bloks ?
From: Dan C on 23 Jan 2010 11:29
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:42:41 -0500, Gang Greene wrote:

> Dan C wrote:
>
>> On 2010-01-23, notbob wrote:
>>> On 2010-01-23, Jim Cochrane <allergic-to-spam(a)no-spam-allowed.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2-D, is reliable, and, of course, works well with Linux.
>>>
>>> Matrox, a favorite with professional CAD drafters, has always worked
>>> well with Linux and has superb 2D graphic quality.
>>
>> I concur. If all you care about is 2D, you simply cannot do better
>> than Matrox on Linux.
>>
>>
>>
> If all you care about is 2D then most anything would work.

The original poster *specified* that all he cared about was 2D. Yes,
most anything would work. There are different degrees of performance,
even when speaking only of 2D, and Matrox *excels* at it. Simple facts.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he wiped the vomit from his chin.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
From: thunder8 on 23 Jan 2010 17:20
From: Dan C <youmustbejoking(a)lan.invalid>
Date: 23 Jan 2010 16:29:20 GMT
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:42:41 -0500, Gang Greene wrote:
>
> The original poster *specified* that all he cared about was 2D. Yes,
> most anything would work. There are different degrees of performance,
> even when speaking only of 2D, and Matrox *excels* at it. Simple facts.
>
Matrox excelled in 2D quality when CRT's were used. Is the difference
still visible on a LCD? I always thought it was in the RAMDAC's, and
with a LCD, there is no RAMDAC being used.

My latest motherboard (Asus M4A785-M) has an integrated Ati card that
basically does everything I want (2D, playing videos) and uses less
power than any external card, be it Ati, NVidia or Matrox. Since I use a
LCD screen, the screen quality is fine.

HTH,
Jurriaan

--
prachtige geschenken, exclusieve cadeaus: handgemaakte houten schalen

http://www.houtenschalen.nl
From: Jim Cochrane on 24 Jan 2010 02:55
On 2010-01-23, Dan C <youmustbejoking(a)lan.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:42:41 -0500, Gang Greene wrote:
>
>> Dan C wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-01-23, notbob wrote:
>>>> On 2010-01-23, Jim Cochrane <allergic-to-spam(a)no-spam-allowed.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2-D, is reliable, and, of course, works well with Linux.
>>>>
>>>> Matrox, a favorite with professional CAD drafters, has always worked
>>>> well with Linux and has superb 2D graphic quality.
>>>
>>> I concur. If all you care about is 2D, you simply cannot do better
>>> than Matrox on Linux.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> If all you care about is 2D then most anything would work.
>
> The original poster *specified* that all he cared about was 2D. Yes,
> most anything would work. There are different degrees of performance,
> even when speaking only of 2D, and Matrox *excels* at it. Simple facts.

Thanks, Dan, and all that have responded so far.

I've thought of another requirement that I should have mentioned, but
didn't think of earlier (brought to my attention from the "graphics cards
for Linux" thread) - I want to be able to run googleearth with reasonably
good performance. On my current machine[1], googleearth is quite slow[2].

I think googleearth is a 3D application, is it not? If so, this implies
a correction to what I said before - I need some 3D performance
capabilities in my video card. Sorry for my confusion. But I think
that to run googleearth with reasonable performance is far less
demanding than running a modern 3D game with good performance. Please
correct me if I'm wrong.

How will Matrox cards (those that cost not much more than $100) do with
googleearth? Is the Matrox driver on Linux (which, I believe, is mga)
capable of running googleearth without software emulation and with decent
performance?

(I suppose software emulation implies that the CPU is doing most of
the work. If so, perhaps the core i7 920 I'm considering could handle
this fine and I don't need to worry about a 3D-capable card[?]. I won't,
in general, be using googleearth at the same time that another demanding
process is running.)

Any other cards I should look at? I still think it'd be wise for me to
use a card with a good open-source driver. (As far as I can tell,
nouveau cannot yet come close to Nvidia's binary driver.)


Thanks.

Jim


[1] An old Intel Pentium 4, 3.2 GHz CPU with (according to lshw) an
Nvidia NV37GL [Quadro PCI-E Series] card, using the nouveau driver

[2] For the reason, according to the note googleearth displays on startup:
"You are currently running google earth in 'OpenGL' with software emulation.
In this mode, google earth will work but it will run very slowly. If you
want to run google earth more quickly we suggest that you upgrade your
graphics card driver..."

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Evan24 on 24 Jan 2010 10:12
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:55:07 +0000, Jim Cochrane wrote:

> On 2010-01-23, Dan C <youmustbejoking(a)lan.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:42:41 -0500, Gang Greene wrote:
>>
>>> Dan C wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-01-23, notbob wrote:
>>>>> On 2010-01-23, Jim Cochrane
>>>>> <allergic-to-spam(a)no-spam-allowed.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2-D, is reliable, and, of course, works well with Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matrox, a favorite with professional CAD drafters, has always worked
>>>>> well with Linux and has superb 2D graphic quality.
>>>>
>>>> I concur. If all you care about is 2D, you simply cannot do better
>>>> than Matrox on Linux.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If all you care about is 2D then most anything would work.
>>
>> The original poster *specified* that all he cared about was 2D. Yes,
>> most anything would work. There are different degrees of performance,
>> even when speaking only of 2D, and Matrox *excels* at it. Simple
>> facts.
>
> Thanks, Dan, and all that have responded so far.
>
> I've thought of another requirement that I should have mentioned, but
> didn't think of earlier (brought to my attention from the "graphics
> cards for Linux" thread) - I want to be able to run googleearth with
> reasonably good performance. On my current machine[1], googleearth is
> quite slow[2].
>
> I think googleearth is a 3D application, is it not? If so, this implies
> a correction to what I said before - I need some 3D performance
> capabilities in my video card. Sorry for my confusion. But I think
> that to run googleearth with reasonable performance is far less
> demanding than running a modern 3D game with good performance. Please
> correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes, it's 3D. Go nvidia then, you have nv, noveau and nvidia drivers. Any
modern card should run googleearth, check its requirements. Matrox?
Excellent quality, abysmal linux drivers. When G450/550 were still around,
that is. Don't know its current status - anyone?
From: General Schvantzkoph on 24 Jan 2010 10:12
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 01:46:06 +0000, Jim Cochrane wrote:

> [Sorry if this post shows up more than once - posting appeared to fail
> before, but it may not have.]
>
> My question is similar to David Brown's post, "Graphics cards for
> Linux", except that I am looking for something cheaper and with less
> demanding performance requirements. I'm looking for a card that costs
> no more than $120 (and, ideally, <= $100) that performs well in 2-D, is
> reliable, and, of course, works well with Linux. And since the
> performance requirements are not high, a non-Nvidia card with an
> open-source driver will probably work fine. (This is for the 64-bit
> music workstation that I posted about a week or two ago.) I'm aware of
> nouveau (spelling?) for Nvidia, but I have a sense that it's not mature
> enough yet for what I want.
>
> With the above requirements, I think I'm looking for an ATI or Intel
> card. Sure, I could do some googling, using the Linux hardware
> compatibility video section as a reference, to see which cards in my
> price range are good; but I think getting information on how a
> particular card works with Linux can be a challenge. I may still do
> this, but, like David, I'd like to get feedback from anyone here on what
> cards have worked, or not worked, for you.
>
> I'm reading David's "graphics cards ..." thread, too, and saving any
> useful info I see there. But since that discussion is mainly about
> higher-end cards, I think a separate thread is appropriate.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jim

I stick with Nvidia cards, you can pick up a decent one for $50. The
opensource Nouveau driver gives decent performance although I always use
the Nvidia binary drivers.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Graphics cards for Linux
Next: How2 'dd' bootable-CD's bloks ?