[ltp] Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 900 vs 64MB ATI Mobility Radeon x300

[noc ops]

L. Mark Stone wrote:
> Quoting noc ops <aptgetd@gmail.com>:
> 
> 
>>I'm trying to decide whether to pick Intel Graphics Media Accelerator
>>900 vs 64MB ATI Mobility Radeon x300 (integrated) for my thinkpad R52.
> 
> 
> With ATI you get ATI's binary-only drivers or the barebones ati kernel  
> driver.  If you use ATI's drivers, you'll need to recompile them  
> everytime you do a kernel update.  That means you'll need to install a  
> build environment as well as the kernel sources. It also means you'll  
> need to have some familiarity with boot options and/or init 3, for  
> when you update the kernel and forget to recompile the binary driver  
> before rebooting.
> 
> With the Intel, you can use the 855resolution package (or the newer  
> 915resolution package; 855resolution works fine for me) to get  
> 1400x1050.  Not sure about Ubuntu, but SuSE (which is what I run on my  
> 15" 1859-BAU R52) includes the 855resolution package and so set up was  
> pretty easy--and I don't have to worry about kernel udates.  Plus, I  
> get 3D, the external monitor works, and I can use the KDE utils (I  
> don't know if Gnome has something comparable) to change the screen  
> resolution on the fly.
--------------
What if I let the system (ubuntu 5.10 in my case) use the default
(intel) display driver? Or should I get the newer version of i915 [0]?

[0] http://dri.freedesktop.org/snapshots/


regards,
/virendra

> 
> YMMV, but after all the homework I did before buying, I concluded the  
> ATI was more appealing on the face of it, but the Intel was just a lot  
> less to hassle with and worry about.  So, I got the Intel.


> 
> All the best,
> Mark
> 
>