That video is for 6.2. 6.4 drivers are much better. And in general, since Intel don't have proprietary drivers for Linux, they'll very soon have far better driver support than both Nvidia and AMD on Linux.
Why? The AMD drivers for Linux are also free, aren't they?
I doubt that the 6.4 kernel improves performance enough to make up the difference to AMD cards in their category, but granted, that was the estimation I mentioned. A newer source would be nice!
Mostly, but they've still got propietary "pro" drivers for certain feature sets. I certainly trust Intel more to work with the open source community on driver support for their hardware, based on the history. Intel iGPUs had open source Linux drivers from the beginning. AMD and ATI before them ignored us for decades, and they're still not fully there. I applaud them for finally having made some progress, but it's been slow, and they still have a ways to go. Intel are poised to overtake them quite quickly in this respect(Linux driver support) despite the added work of having started completely from scratch.
Of course they're still behind on hardware performance, but that's to be expected from a first gen product. I definitely think they could make a mark on the mid/high(but not top/enthusiast) tier market within a couple gens, especially when price vs Nvidia is taken into account.
Intel's iGPU driver might have been free for longer, but it also wasn't very good. If you tried to run games with it that wasn't a great experience, even with the i5-5676C and its relatively strong Iris Pro graphics. And that wasn't only the hardware being weak relative to modern dedicated gpus, it was also related to driver issues and thus games not running that should have, or not running without crashes. Plus no support for Variable refresh rate. And which driver to pick also needed to be figured out (iris vs i965), that was just confusing. From what I read, game developers hated the driver for its issues.
Sure, better than Nvidia, as it mostly just worked (when it worked) and nothing needed to be compiled.
On the other hand, AMD switched from fglrx to support radeon and amdgpu when exactly? According to the gentoo wiki that was 2016. And radeon was usable before that, iirc (2014 I wrote in my blog about radeon being better than fglrx to play Witcher 2). That's also not yesterday, and works much better in practice for a long while now.
I'm also rather optimistic about how well Intel is likely to support Arc on Linux, but that they will give us better driver support than AMD I wouldn't be certain at all. AMD does a very good job there.
Intel and nVidia/ATI came from very different situations though.
The fear of nVidia and ATI was always that their "tricks" would be adopted by the $other_party. Imagine your driver has 5 tricks to make the performance 5% better in total: this is a huge competitive advantage. Now the other company reads those tricks in your source and can (legally) adopt them for their own drivers (adopting a programming construct or some trick isn't a copyright violation).
While this fear isn't completely realistic because most of the time performance isn't really determined by these sort of factors, it's also not completely UNrealistic because it certainly could be, at least in some cases! In a world where everyone is closed source and you're locked in a bitter rivalry with performance differences often being fairly small, it just makes complete sense to keep stuff closed.
Contrast this with Intel which just made integrated graphics: for much of its history performance wasn't a huge concern, and there wasn't really much direct competition either. There was never any reason to not open things.
