It is difficult for Intel to produce something competitive in the field of graphics cards after leaving the Larrabee. The fact is that it has nothing to "evolve" beyond their IGP's, and even though she did a "QPIfire" a chip based on the architecture of GMAs, it will never compete with Fermi, Cypress, or any other competitor in performance.
There is a mention on Fud today about some Intel/Nvidia multi GPU tech called Optimus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
lolz
GMA 4500 x 2?
oh..it is going to be VERY powerful
can play CoD at 1024*768 at med setting???
If you mean CoD1, YES! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by haylui
I can play Call of Duty 1 @70-85FPS constant (Vertical Sync Enabled) Max Details (max on everything) with the HD3300 IGP on my 1024x768 CRT. An that was with my X2 5400+, should be better with the new Phenom.
Could it be for power management? 1 GPU if light work load, 2nd if needed. Power reduction.
If it was that you could just segregate the GPU and have 1 big one. Desktop work? shut down 3/4 of the shader groups. Gaming? Fire them all up!Quote:
Originally Posted by Etihtsarom
At leaset Clarkdale IGP can do it better then AMD's IGP :):Quote:
Originally Posted by haylui
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...aphics/cod.png
Difficult but not inpossible. Intel's IGP already reached the level of competitor's IGPs now it is just mather of time when Intel enters high perf. graphics. There's one thing remains - put more shader processors and rasterization units on die :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Larvitar
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...-graphics.html
While personaly I dont believe in such move from intel, I still can see some reasons behind this, mostly price driven. Also it seems, that Intel may incorporate some gpgpu functionality in newer IGPs.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video.../mediashow.png
:D did you actually check the full review of xbitlabs: EPIC failureQuote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
they use 785 chipset without sideport so its a 1year old chipset against the latest, there are way faster chipsets available and within 1 month you have the 8xx series. They use a 3.0 intel against 2.9 amd hohoho :clap: a dual against a quad, so again the power and price is out of spec none of the tests done is actually using the quad core.
If you only show the games where it was actually higher sure an intel fan is always right, but what about quake,trackmania,streetfighter,hawx,far cry,left4 dead where the new intel is equal or way less for sure with 1280 res.
as always, there must be some truth to what he wrote... but with all the missing grammar... this time i really cant tell what hes talking about... at all... :P
at 3-4 times the die size and 2-3 times the tdp, wow... amazing! :PQuote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
And you call me fan? Yeh, right... :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
Does all this really mather. AMD still can't complete with more then 1 year old Nehalem. So what?Quote:
they use 785 chipset without sideport so its a 1year old chipset against the latest, there are way faster chipsets available and within 1 month you have the 8xx series. They use a 3.0 intel against 2.9 amd hohoho :clap: a dual against a quad, so again the power and price is out of spec none of the tests done is actually using the quad core.
You're free to post images. My post addressed specific message about CoD performance.Quote:
If you only show the games where it was actually higher sure an intel fan is always right, but what about quake,trackmania,streetfighter,hawx,far cry,left4 dead where the new intel is equal or way less for sure with 1280 res.
Where from you get those numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Fan boy spottedQuote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
anyway with Intel's size, it is a shame to design such a lousy GPU.
btw, don't take something out of context, it really doesn't help the fact.
Can you show results with disabled GPU acceleration settings?Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
Unfortunately, in recent times it is not possible on this forum to say anything good about Intel without to be labeled a fanboy.Quote:
Originally Posted by haylui
This is from earlier review:Quote:
Can you show results with disabled GPU acceleration settings?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._11.html#sect0
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/c.../cyberlink.png
Not sure if it is comparable, but generaly speaking, i3-530 ~ Athlon X4 630 in this test.
It is not comparable. The Cyberlink Mediashow 5 and the Cyberlink Mediashow Espresso 5.5 are pretty different applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
It is not so simple. The SSE4 support could make pretty big differences in video conversion. And it's only one thing. Anyway the Mediashow Espresso is highly optimized for the Core i architecture. sourceQuote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
BTW if you take a look at the GPU Optimization tab you can see that the Mediashow Espresso doesn't support the HD 4200 IGP.
Get that running Prime!Quote:
Originally Posted by >HyperlogiK<
Here comes Intel!!
Hold your 5970 buys!!
This makes sense because this is what nvati should have done a long time ago.
If you can create perfectly modular gpu cores you cut down production costs and increase yields. Improving performance becomes a plug-&-play challenge. With gfx processing highly parallel by nature, as you add more cores you get more performance. All you need is a proper high bandwidth interface to the texture buffers.
It costs intel peanuts to produce their IGPs. If they release lowend/mainstream gfxes with this concept they can compete at wicked prices.
Get ASUS to take it up, and you can have 6 gpus on one card :eek:
Optimus is nothing else but hybrid sli v2, remember when they hyped that? turn off your dedicated gpu to save power with using the integrated graphics and turn it back on when needed, except that you had to reboot in between. Optimus promises to get rid of that flaw.Quote:
Originally Posted by >HyperlogiK<
Adding a second integrated crappy gpu won't do much for performance, so unless Intel plans to use one of them for something else than graphics it makes no sense whatsoever to have two integrated gpus.
I'm sorry, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
Doubling the GPU resources (having 2 instead of 1 "graphics core") will likely just about double the IGP performance.
It's a great way to market variable IGP power & performance, as consumers are now familiar with multi-core CPUs.
It also means Intel can offer a broader range of IGP power and performance on Sandy Bridge parts, while saving die space on those intended for office work only.
The "dual-core GPU" parts can service the consumer light-gaming market, the single-core for business.
But, I guess it will take AMD copying the same marketing strategy for its legions of fans to suddenly praise this as the best idea since sliced bread. Much like "turbo boost" is suddenly a great thing after years of irrational disparagement. :shakes:
But then, they'd first have to figure out that IGPs are not intended for playing Crysis with max eye-candy, and looking over this thread, plenty are unclear on that concept as well. It's as though "performance PER WATT" was a completely foreign concept suddenly, just because it's a GPU, not a CPU.
And if AMD did this you'd be telling us what a horrible idea it is. :rolleyes: We haven't even gotten into the mess that relying on multi-gpu drivers from Intel would cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
You believe in perfect scaling? look at crossfire and sli, one single faster gpu makes more sense than two crappy gpus, I don't see how Intel would manage to make it scale better than nvidia or amd, save power? just drop the clocks and voltage or do it like amd does with the 5xxx series, from super low end to fastest thing on the market its all essentially the same desgin, just more or less of the same but much less scaling issues than cf / sli.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
That's why you're not making Billions of dollars and Intel IS. May be they just studied slightly harder and barely edged ahead of you and figured it out. Let's wait and see.Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
No, it can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
HD4200 is 785G, the best AMD IGP is HD3300 (790GX), even on the xbitlabs review this IGP @ 900MHz can't beat the HD4200 @ 700MHz here:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...ics/quake4.png
here (1024x768)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...phics/tmnf.png
here
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...s/sfighter.png
here (1024x768)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...phics/hawx.png
here
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...ics/farcry.png
and here (1024x768)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...phics/l4d2.png
Intel' igp @ 733MHz can only beat HD4200 @ 700MHz in ONE game
and now, add a sideport to this, then you have the HD3300.
plus, in this review, it's i3 540 vs X4 635, but with the price of a i3 540 you can have a Phenom II X4 925 witch is much better for gaming than the X4 635.
this Intel HD IGP is not crap, it's enough for most users and big improvement over GMA4500, but AMD's best IGP is still much better than Intel's best IGP.
And this AMD's chipsets are pretty old, they will have new IGPs soon.