# Which graphics card do you suggest?

## gercina

These graphics cards have almost the same price, plese help me to choose one.

Which has better driver support, etc...?

Which one do you suggest, and why?

Gigabyte PCI Express GeForce 7600GS 256Mb,  128bit, Turbo Force, Silent pipe (12pipelines), HDTV, Dual DVI, TV out

Inno3D PCI Express 8500GT 256Mb , 450MHz, GDDR2, 128bit, Dual DVI, TV out

Sapphire PCI Express Radeon X1650Pro 256Mb, DDR3, DVI, TV out

Sapphire PCI Express Radeon X1650Pro 512Mb, DDR2, DVI, TV out

Asus PCI Express AH2400XT 256Mb, DVI, TV out

Sapphire PCI Express HD2400XT 256Mb , DVI, TV out

----------

## Mantaar

It largely depends on your specific needs.

Currently two brands are well suited: GeForce and Radeon - that's because they have native 3D drivers... well, so far only GeForce has them, but ATI just released their specs, so in due time you may even see nice 3D support (and open source!) for a Radeon.

That's all distant future however (in the IT-world: about half-a-year...) So right now, I would still recommend NVidia, but that may change in the future.

If you don't need 3D acceleration, an Intel card could do it just as well.

----------

## StringCheesian

Assuming you're going for 3D performance:

Between the two X1650Pro's, I personally would rather have GDDR3 than 512MB. In your case the older cards are actually better (judging by benchmarks at Tom's Hardware): looks like a Radeon X1650Pro with GDDR3 often beats an HD2400XT and a 7600gs likewise is generally better than an 8500gt.

I usually have a strong inclination toward nVidia because their linux drivers give you the same or sometimes even slightly better speed compared to Windows. However Ati may be worth considering now that they have improved their linux drivers.

Windows benchmarks:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=859&model2=856&chart=318

Linux Radeon HD benchmarks:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=828&num=2

Any Linux 8500gt benchmarks on the net now (including those in the link above) are obsoleted by version 100.14.19 of nVidia's driver, which fixes poor performance on the 8x00 series. New benchmarks should show them doing better, but still not as well as on Windows according to the Phoronix guy:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=851&num=3

Same with most benchmarks of Ati hardware with Linux. They just recently released drivers that were a huge improvement where they actually worked (several people reported problems - they are still buggy especially with cards older than the HD series). The Radeon HD benchmarks linked to above are with the NEW Ati driver and the OLD nVidia driver.

If I had to pick from those you listed I think I'd buy the 7600gs.

----------

## Mad Merlin

The situation for ATI is improving now, but I'm not quite ready to suggest buying a new Radeon card yet. Having said that, I'd suggest the 7600 GS over the 8500 GT, as the 7600 GS is both faster and silent.

The 8 series Geforces under the 8800 GTS 320 are a bit underpowered.

----------

## Dagger

I would advice 7600GS, although for better support you could take a look on 8800 GTS 320 (really worth it). When it comes to ATI well its not ATI any more. It's AMD now, and amd my feeling toward amd are really bad. Maybe in a future when they release spec for open source it will be worth going for, but for now I would advise to avoid it. So far nvidia is responding really fast and really well for linux needs (although better support is for newer products - mainly G8 line), so worth going for.

----------

## i92guboj

 *Mantaar wrote:*   

> It largely depends on your specific needs.
> 
> Currently two brands are well suited: GeForce and Radeon - that's because they have native 3D drivers... well, so far only GeForce has them, but ATI just released their specs, so in due time you may even see nice 3D support (and open source!) for a Radeon.
> 
> That's all distant future however (in the IT-world: about half-a-year...) So right now, I would still recommend NVidia, but that may change in the future.
> ...

 

Hehehe, half a year... I don't think so. 

To start with, they released only "some" specs, not everything. To continue with, it was just only 2d stuff which they released, and to follow, even with complete specifications, I wouldn't bet you will see a working decent video driver that soon.

Someone above also said the ATi situation is improving. Well, I have been reading many opinions in this respect. For some people there has been a huge performance boost with the latest release of the drivers. For many others, they new drivers don't even work (though in most cases, is with card models that AMD said they would not work, so, we can't certainly blame them for that).

In any regards, if open source is a concern, you should be buying an intel card. If not, I tend to recommend nvidia. Just because from a few dozens cards I installed in linux boxes, no nvidia ones gave me a problem (starting with gf2 and below, up to newer models). While ATi cards always gave me problems, and in most cases I couldn't even make them work with any other thing than vesa. Yes, I know i am biased, but a video drivers shouldn't require any other thing than just emerge whatever, configure xorg.conf and fire up. And nvidia just always worked that way for me.

----------

## linga

If you need gaming performance then go with nvidida, if you want compiz/beryl/compComm then I think an Intel card such as the X3000 would be enough. Intel cards have open source drivers which I believe are pretty good, however these cards are not as fast as AMD/ATI or nvidia. As for AMD/ATI, I would not recommend those, the drivers doesn't support AIGLX so you cannot run compiz/beryl/compComm and still have DRI. Also AMD/ATI drivers does not support XVideo (atleast not together with compiz/beryl/compComm)

Personally I run on AMD/ATI, using XGL. compoziting is fine but XVideo is not. Nor is accelleration within XGL.

To summarize:

* AMD/ATI drivers are not well integrated with xorg (for compiz/beryl/compComm you need xgl)

* nvidia provide decent drivers and top-of-the-line performance (I have not tested this driver, but it's definately better than AMD/ATI)

* Intel have open source drivers which I have never tested, but I think they are good, today I would probably go for Intel

----------

## obrut<-

buy a intel graphics card? i've never seen any in this millenium. are there any cards with intel graphics controller on it? so far i just know motherboard chipsets with integrated graphics core made by intel, but no separate cards. or am i wrong?

----------

## Keruskerfuerst

You can buy both ATI or Nvidia graphics cards.

----------

## obrut<-

that's not the point. i was wondering if i missed something (intel graphics _cards_) or if the usage of "intel cards" in this thread is just misleading.

----------

## i92guboj

 *obrut<- wrote:*   

> that's not the point. i was wondering if i missed something (intel graphics _cards_) or if the usage of "intel cards" in this thread is just misleading.

 

I have only seen them as integrated devices.

----------

## bobber205

I have had ZERO problems with my 7600gt.

----------

## linga

I'm really sorry... totaly forgot this thread...  :Embarassed: 

I have not seen any intel _cards_, only integrated chipsets, that was just me writing wrong stuff.

----------

## Keruskerfuerst

ATI=OpenGL

Nvidia=DirectX

That´s the main reason why Nvidia cards do have better results in "hardware gaming tests".

----------

## November Rain

I used Gentoo with some Cards from Nvidia(GF4 4600ti, Geforce 6800GS, Geforce 8800 GTS) and Ati(Radeon9800 Pro), i've got no problems with both. But nvidia do have the better driver support. I wouldn't buy Ati Cards any more.

----------

