I find today that the ATI Rage 128 I have only has 16 megs of vram
which is not enough in my book for a smooth X install. What I ask is
for any suggestions for a decent agp card that is perhaps favored for
an older agp x2 motherboard under linux. For instance most people may
agree that the Celeron 300a was a darling for overclocking. Opinions
will vary i'm sure but hopefully you get what I mean. Is nVidia a good
one or should I go more lower model number Radeon such as a 7500? Not
looking for ridicule but perhaps some advice on a good cheap card that
will work well under slackware/x with smooth results. Just fyi this
machine is not used for gaming at all and massive FPS are not
important to me. I have a fairly nice 17 inch monitor that will do
1280x1024 and I would just like the x to run smooth and look good.
Thanks for taking the time to read this if you just did.

RayzrShrp <> wrote:

> I find today that the ATI Rage 128 I have only has 16 megs of vram
> which is not enough in my book for a smooth X install. What I ask is
> for any suggestions for a decent agp card that is perhaps favored for
> an older agp x2 motherboard under linux. For instance most people may
> agree that the Celeron 300a was a darling for overclocking. Opinions
> will vary i'm sure but hopefully you get what I mean. Is nVidia a good
> one or should I go more lower model number Radeon such as a 7500? Not
> looking for ridicule but perhaps some advice on a good cheap card that
> will work well under slackware/x with smooth results. Just fyi this
> machine is not used for gaming at all and massive FPS are not
> important to me. I have a fairly nice 17 inch monitor that will do
> 1280x1024 and I would just like the x to run smooth and look good.
> Thanks for taking the time to read this if you just did.

nVidia.

--
Pascal Users:
To show respect for the 313th anniversary (tomorrow) of the
death of Blaise Pascal, your programs will be run at half speed.

In <g3tj105v723c665h0prs7o2f83pmd3f22r@4ax.com>, wrote:

> I find today that the ATI Rage 128 I have only has 16 megs of vram
> which is not enough in my book for a smooth X install. What I ask is
> for any suggestions for a decent agp card that is perhaps favored for
> an older agp x2 motherboard under linux. For instance most people may
> agree that the Celeron 300a was a darling for overclocking. Opinions
> will vary i'm sure but hopefully you get what I mean. Is nVidia a good
> one or should I go more lower model number Radeon such as a 7500? Not
> looking for ridicule but perhaps some advice on a good cheap card that
> will work well under slackware/x with smooth results. Just fyi this
> machine is not used for gaming at all and massive FPS are not
> important to me.

For work, where gaming and othe GL apps are not important, I prefer matrox
cards. The "not so new" MGA G450 does all it should, and provides (if you
take the trouble of setting it up) half-decent 3D acceleration (not
reasonable for gaming).

Otherwise: nvidia

Good luck
Franz

--
Franz M. Sauerzopf
Atominstitut, TU Wien

In <pan.2004.01.30.07.43.02.680652@ati.ac.at>, Franz M. Sauerzopf wrote:

> In <g3tj105v723c665h0prs7o2f83pmd3f22r@4ax.com>, wrote:
>

> For work, where gaming and othe GL apps are not important, I prefer matrox
> cards. The "not so new" MGA G450 does all it should, and provides (if you
> take the trouble of setting it up) half-decent 3D acceleration (not
> reasonable for gaming).
Forgot the main point: 2D image quality is _very_ nice...

--
Franz M. Sauerzopf
Atominstitut, TU Wien

RayzrShrp <> wrote:
> I find today that the ATI Rage 128 I have only has 16 megs of vram
> which is not enough in my book for a smooth X install.

That is new to me!
At resolution 1280x1024, 24 bpp (cq 32) the card only needs about 8 MB
(1280 x 1024 x 4 bytes < 8 MB) for full (normal X, no DRI) functionality,
and also 1600x1200 should be possible - even with 2 virtual screens.
We never had ANY problems with our 16 MB cards (Riva TNT2's etc),
and we've got a few of them left around.
We've currently retired all of our Matrox 4 MB cards, but even those
worked reasonably well.
--
************************************************** ******************
** Eef Hartman, Delft University of Technology, dept. EWI/TW **
** e-mail: E.J.M.Hartman@math.tudelft.nl, fax: +31-15-278 7295 **
** snail-mail: P.O. Box 5031, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands **
************************************************** ******************

Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@math.tudelft.nl> wrote in message news:<bvdfma$5k5$1@news.tudelft.nl>...
> RayzrShrp <> wrote:
> > I find today that the ATI Rage 128 I have only has 16 megs of vram
> > which is not enough in my book for a smooth X install.
>
> That is new to me!
> At resolution 1280x1024, 24 bpp (cq 32) the card only needs about 8 MB
> (1280 x 1024 x 4 bytes < 8 MB) for full (normal X, no DRI) functionality,
> and also 1600x1200 should be possible - even with 2 virtual screens.
> We never had ANY problems with our 16 MB cards (Riva TNT2's etc),
> and we've got a few of them left around.
> We've currently retired all of our Matrox 4 MB cards, but even those
> worked reasonably well.

Hmmmmmm....that does sound suspect. I will do some more checking into
it since what you say sounds perfectly legit.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Eicq - The XEmacs ICQ Client <http://eicq.sf.net/>

iEYEABECAAYFAkAcJPkACgkQHSfbS6lLMAMepwCgmhqsC/kFumxUpHna8oZbLiRv
kQgAn3QsrKcWuB11B3GtBYMx4z7+3MCg
=ZNCa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----