[ale] Nvidia vs ATI on low cost laptops

[Dow Hurst]

Geoffrey,
Howdy!  Would you run glxgears on your laptops for me and report the 
frame rates?
13319 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2663.800 FPS
15475 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3095.000 FPS
15550 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3110.000 FPS
15505 frames in 5.0 seconds = 3101.000 FPS

This is from my desktop with a Nvidia GeForce4 Ti 4200 and I am using 
the default 300x300 window size for glxgears.  At 1280x1024 I get 239fps.

The commands on SuSE for good info are 3dinfo, glxinfo, and glxgears 
from what I can quickly tell.  Thanks for the feedback on your laptops 
since just supporting 3D and doing it well make a difference for 
modelling proteins and will affect my choices.  I know the Dell Inspiron 
with the Nvidia graphics is really nice, however it is a heavy expensive 
desktop replacement laptop.  Thanks,
Dow



Geoffrey wrote:

> Dow Hurst wrote:
>
>> I'm interested in getting a reasonably priced laptop but I need good 
>> OpenGL performance to make it useful to me.  I know that ATI now has 
>> some drivers available for 3D under Linux but I trust the Nvidia 
>> drivers alot more.  I've never used the ATI drivers but most laptops, 
>> especially the low cost ones are ATI driven or Intel integrated 
>> graphics driven.  Only the high end stuff seems to include Nvidia 
>> chips.  Does anyone have experience with the new ATI drivers?  Are 
>> they stable usable and with good performance?
>
>
> Hey Dow!  I've got two laptops, my Sony, which I believe you've seen, 
> that has an ATI 7500, uses Xorg and supports 3D, absolutely rock 
> solid.  I just picked up an hp pavilion ($500 after rebate at Circuit 
> City, before Christmas sale).  It has Intel Extreme Graphics 2 and it 
> works quite well and supports 3D.
>
> I"ve tried the ATI drivers, but they didn't perform any better for me 
> than Xorg, so I went back to the Xorg drivers.
>