[geeks] linux box upgrade

[Joshua Boyd]

On 3/27/2012 6:42 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On 03/27/2012 03:59 PM, Joshua Boyd wrote:
>>
>> I would say that if you want games and cad, go nvidia, but if you want
>> the least amount of fuss in general, go with Intel graphics.
>>
>> In my experience, AMD graphics under Linux can work very well, and
>> sometimes it just works without fiddling, but it often seems that
>> upgrades bring regressions.
>> _______________________________________________
>
> Regressions are the problem with all the open source drivers. I have,
> periodically, had very good luck with Intel in the past. Then you
> upgrade a kernel, and surprise, it just doesn't come back from DPMS.
>
> My work desktop, with Sandy Bridge integrated graphics, works "fine."
> But it can't even render the classic "gears" demo correctly -- some
> parts are inside out.
>
> My laptop, again Sandy Bridge, doesn't have the artifacting problem. But
> it runs StarCraft II at <1 fps under Linux. Not entirely a win. Oh, and
> it crashed on resume ~20% of the time until 3.2.x.
>
> I assume these will all be fixed at some point in the future. Or it will
> start hanging up again. Or both. That's all part of the excitement.

FWIW, Sandy Bridge counts as bleeding edge.  I've never have trouble 
with GMA 945 or 965.  Once 3150 showed up at all it has been rock solid 
as well.  Also, GMA X4500 has been solid in my experience.  All of those 
are on the old side now though.  I don't have any experience with the 
graphics in the original Core i devices.

Playing Starcraft II does soundly fit into the category of people who 
should strongly consider Nvidia graphics.

> If you don't want to participate in "exciting" bug reports and kernel
> upgrades, the nVidia proprietary driver is often a safe choice. (For one
> thing, no one will want to hear your bug reports thanks to the tainted
> kernel :)

I have never had feature regressions from Nvidia drivers, so there is that.