LOL, I'd have issues paying much more than $150 for the GPU period. I paid $40 for the GT220 I'm using now and I'm happy with that!

For me it is all about having a reliable and stable setup. Both ATI and nVidia have equal hardware quality. The only difference between the two is the software. nVidia as always is superb in this area, so they win me as a customer. I was an ATI customer too, but I learned my lesson that having the fastest hardware does not compensate for poor software. Though I am not a stupid customer, so I am picky what model that I buy from any brand.

For example, I would not pick a GeForce GT220 because it has the same performance as a GeForce8 8300. I suggest do not go any lower than a GeForce GTX260 if you are on a budget and still want performance as good as a GeForce GTX280. If you are on a tight budget, a GeForce9 9400GT with 1 GB of video memory will be the best. If you want to best graphic performance in Linux, a GeForce GTX285 is the best. Sure you might think a GeForce GTX295 will be better but that is more like two GeForce GTX260 in SLI which you can do cheaper than a GeForce GTX295. At this time nVidia does not have any Linux software for GeForce GTX480.

If you are considering ATI products, stick with 3rd party software because ATI software just stinks and this is not AMD"s fault.

The only "NAZI" companies are Intel and Microsoft. If none of companies do it their way, they are out of business. Micosoft controls what ATI and nVidia are supposed to include in their graphic chips or else lag behind and then go out of business. Intel is the same, but they include one more thing. They monopolizes the computer industry market by choking innovation even though they invest some money in a innovation pool. Investing in this pool is the same as buying carbon credits which Intel did too. Buying or selling carbon credits is a bad thing.

FYI, software from ATI is not open source too, so your argument is not valid. AMD just provided documentation on the microcode or AtomBIOS and this is not "real" documentation.

Bull: http://www.x.org/docs/AMD/

That is *real* documentation.

In addition, the open source driver is being funded by ATI/AMD.

Adam

I still disagree, most of the documentation is microcode. Also the documentation seems truncated, so there could be at least four to five times more pages that ATI is not providing. AMD is not funding the open source ATI driver. They are asking questions and this is not funding.

I recommend if buying ATI cards is to only use 3rd party software. This means use open source drivers instead of ATI's proprietary driver. Sure a lot of features will be lost, but the reliability and stability will be a lot better. If you do not mind a lost of reliability and stability, but you prefer 3D support than go with ATI's proprietary driver.

You can disagree all you like, it doesn't make you right. Those are actual registers, on the card, that the driver developers bang on, documented to show what they do. This is then incorporated into the driver the "nitty gritty way" as you put it in another post. The AtomBIOS is also documented and open source, but it's not even used for acceleration.

In addition to funding developers outside of AMD, they have their own employees working on the open source driver.

You're just full of misinformation.

Though I do prefer the open source drivers, my HD4850 and HD4350 work just fine with the latest proprietary drivers from AMD. Which is more than I can ever say about the last few nvidia cards I owned.

Adam

Yes the documentation list some of the registers, but not all of them. Still the documentation is incomplete because 40 pages for a complex chip such as the R700 is not enough. Other chips that are not as complex as the R700 has a lot more pages. Though it is better than nothing.

Your facts are wrong because ATI is only answering questions and not doing all the work like you said. I read this several articles on the Internet from reputable sources. ATI and AMD developers are doing it on the side while they develop the proprietary driver. Also ATI and AMD has only have one developer doing the work, but it does not seem the developer is spending all the working hours on the project.

The last nVidia card I own is a GeForce8 8400M GS which runs fine in any operating system including with Vista. If your card does not, it is probably a user problem or a hardware incompatibility. You just can not select any hardware and add it to your computer. Though the problems that usually comes up is a user problem and this relates to how you set it up or you are using the latest software that causes incompatibility with other software.

I am not a nVidia fan, but I am an AMD fan. I tried Intel processors and ATI graphics cards. Intel is too expensive for their quality although AMD provides equal quality as Intel at a faction of the price. nVidia and ATI is a different story because both nVidia and ATI have equal hardware quality. The difference is the quality of the software. ATI just stinks at it. nVidia provides a finished product while ATI gives you a half ass product. If ATI makes their cards at least $15 more expensive and uses the money for better software support, will you still buy ATI cards when they are more expensive than nVidia's graphic cards.

Sorry, but without knowing who these 'reputable sources' are, I have no reason to believe them or you.

And, yes, AMD is certainly continuing work on fglrx, at the same as they work on the proprietary driver. So what? They are providing two options.

As for the documentation being incomplete... 40 pages may not document every single register, but A) It's 40 more pages than nvidia has ever released, and B) the combined documentation listed on that site is more than enough for developers to write an opengl 2 driver that runs doom3, ut2004, nexuiz, openarena, compiz, and HL2 (via wine).

About the developers... AMD may employ one developer to actively work on the driver (and, no, I don't know what he does every hour of every day, but neither do you), but they also fund development by developers not directly on their own payroll.

As for your success with nvidia, I applaud you. Yay. I could say the same thing, though, and make the claim that anyone who can't get the proprietary AMD driver working on a supported card is probably the result of a user problem. My claim is no more or less ridiculous than yours is.

Adam

EDIT: And now I'm done discussing this with you. You clearly are not aware of all the facts when it comes to the open source and closed source ATI drivers, and have no desire to be made aware of them.