<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Richard Shaw <<a href="mailto:hobbes1069@gmail.com">hobbes1069@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="Wj3C7c">On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Brian Wood <<a href="mailto:beww@beww.org">beww@beww.org</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> On May 14, 2008, at 2:33 PM, Kevin Kuphal wrote:<br>><br>><br>> I've found the FX5200 cards to be as good as good can be for XvMC support.<br>
> Anything beyond that has been hit or miss it seems.<br>><br>> Plus the fact that they have chromo-key capability, while the newer cards<br>> moved to overlay, most likely for the gamers who are, after all, the target<br>
> market for most of those cards.<br>> Things may change with h264 but at present I think anything more than a 5200<br>> is not necessary.<br>> I also agree that Intel seems to be up and coming in this area.<br>
> beww<br>><br></div></div>On a similar subject. I saw on slashdot that VIA had released some of<br>their framebuffer code. Would better fb drivers for VIA make them<br>VIAble? (Sorry, couldn't help it)</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Except that everything else about VIA = kernel oops</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kevin</div></div>