> On 9/28/05, Dmitry S. Baikov <c0ff@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> Another set of questions for experienced Linux Audio Users.
>> Mainly it's related to laptop performace.
>> It seems the choice of video system for modern laptop consists of two
>> main alternatives:
>> 1) dedicated high performance controller (nvidia/ati) with closed
>> source drivers
>> 2) shared memory controller (intel) with open source drivers
>>
>> People on Windows forums (no choice for Apples) prefer dedicated
>> controller (with own video memory) because shared memory video
>> degrades performance and increase latencies (they say, and in
>> windows).
>> I suppose, under Linux the things are different, because minimal
>> possible latency is directly related to interrupt processing: closed
>> source drivers have arbitrary interrupt paths, surely are written to
>> maximise video performance and thus, should play a bad role in
>> latency. Moreover they cannot be fixed. Open source ones at least can
>> be fixed.
>>
>> Or I am completely wrong and shared video memory makes it bad on a
>> hardware side (locking pci bus, for example)?
>
> Shared memory is not the highest performance alternative in any
> operating system. When the video memory is part of system memory then
> the processor the video controller fight for memory bandwidth. This
> slows both down.
>
>>
>> So, the question is: what to choose, integrated intel solution or
>> ati/nvidia one (in this case, nvidia is preferred, because of driver
>> quality).
>>
>
> Choose a good controller with a bit of dedicated video memory. For
> purely audio apps you don't need all that much, but if you're going to
> run video apps or do multimedia stuff then you'll want more.
>
> HTH,
> Mark
Mr. Knecht! Nice to see you on LAU! :)
R~
Received on Thu Sep 29 04:15:21 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 29 2005 - 04:15:21 EEST