Printable View
http://global.hkepc.com/database/ima...1514458134.jpg
Source
http://global.hkepc.com/3878/page/1#view
Translated
http://translate.google.com/translat...istory_state0=
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/8474/sshot1lon.png
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1839/sshot2s.png
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/3945/sshot3i.png
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/8725/sshot4s.png
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/2968/sshot5y.png
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6620/sshot6o.png
Graphics are virtually useless. Won't matter, Intel will sell millions and further pollute the GPU market with barely capable parts.
powerconsumption is really nice, graphics performance is still garbage although improved sometimes by 100% it is still not able to come close to a currently existing GPU.
power consumption does look very nice for a 4 threaded chip. lower than a dual threaded chip.
Yeah, you don't need great graphics for 90% of what most people do on a computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeter
For the other 10% (gaming, folding, gpgpu) why would you use an integrated solution in the first place?
Maybe not great graphics, but reasonable performance. There are literally millions of people that suffer through Intel graphics and have no idea how terrible their experience really is. They buy a new computer, and just assume they can go out buy a game and play it. We're not talking about top flight games here, but The Sims etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firestrider
I've seen peoples reaction when they see the games they normally play running on a competent system. They are shell shocked on how good the game actually looks. Let's face it, Intel graphics are absolutely dreadful. People complain that AMD sells chips that are on average maybe 20% slower, but Intel sells the majority of graphics that are AT LEAST 200% slower than even the lowest end AMD stuff. In some games, we are talking about 10 times slower. :shakes:
The argument "most people don't need good graphics" is absolutely stupid. Yes they do, everyone does. Intel graphics=pure :banana::banana::banana::banana:
who cares how much graphic capability it has at that level though... i mean seriously... the applications something like this will be running doesn't require extreme 3d rendering... movies playback find on super old integrated chipsets and flash plays fine on netbooks... you can EVEN PLAY SOME GAMES ON THEM.... i can play css fallout 3 (very low and special configs) and other older games JUST fine on my netbook... you do NOT need super graphics in a netbook or normal system where people will NOT be playing games anyway... because if they are on such a tight budget that this suits them... they shouldn't be gaming in the first place... or they do not know better in which case the same applies...
seriously... how many times does an integrated gpu NOT play the game at lowest settings... if they're that cheap why do they care what it looks like if they won't spend 50$ on a better gpu... come on now... you don't need the extra gpu power now
Excuses excuses. Using the same power envelope, an AMD or Nvidia mobile chip can give much higher performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangekiwii
... so what?
at the cost of a slower processor? a larger motherboard? a more power hungry chipset overall?
come on now... its a platform not a desktop
you can't pair X IGP with Y processor with Z Chipset
you have X IGP with X processor with X chipset...
It doesn't have to be that way, there's simply no excuse for why Intel can't compete with other IGP's, after all these years.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangekiwii
Nvidia 9300 is a good example, it doesn't have ANY of the drawbacks you mentioned. You're making things up. Check out the power consumption compared to the lovely G45.
good power consumption,
about the IGP 3d performance, this looks like the 780g level of performance?
Didn't know all that million office pc need 3d graphics, there are more pcs in offices then at home.Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeter
Intels IGP where and are enough for wordprocessing/spreadsheet calculation, database work etc. ,broadly speaking is you work with your pc its more then enough.
If you want to play real games (not that casual games like Popcap collection xyz) IGPs from NV and AMD also suck ass....
In gaming performance yes, but still not really playable.... would you consider low quality 1024x768 @ 20 FPS acceptable?Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeter
IGPs were never really meant to play quality 3D rendered games. Whether it is an average or 10 FPS or 25 FPS, neither case gives a good gaming experience, all that one will see is one is more choppier than the other -- but most hard core gamers would click the exit to windows option out of frustration be it the cruddy Intel IGP, or even the great nVidia or AMD IGP.
I'd like to see how these chips go with a discrete graphics card and what they end up costing, but my initial impression is that they are not a great advance over an E8400, considering how much time will have passed from the intro of the E8400 to this chip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
well some are actually not able to run full aero decently, that is a basic OS requirement, what about that? I assume although people work on a business/ office pc do like to work on a user interface that has no dejavu to windows me-98 times after all it is 2009....not to mention the win7 engine that hits the gpu even harder if you want all nice looking parts....
Well just look how the adoption rate of win vista is through out the business... pretty bad.
And if they intend to upgrade to win7, i guess they will buy new hardware with win7 and there the chances are very high, that there is either a G4x in there, which is more then enough for aero or something better. Even G3x runs aero without problems and that chipset is already 2 years+ old, (heck it even runs on the GAM965 which is 3 years old.)
Dont know which chipset with IGP your talking about, but there shouldn't be any desktop chipset out there that couldn't run vista aero.
Nettops/Netbooks are another story, but intel never said you'll be able run vista on them anyway :p:
This is the most awseome conclusion I've ever seen in a review :rofl:
Quote:
it is a pity that, in the face of NVIDIA GeForce 9400 IGP chipset, Clarkdale graphics core as the Qing like knives against the Western cannon, completely annihilated.
i guess i just dont know why the review would include gaming tests....:rofl:
this chip is designed to be used in an office environment... you know, where you would be fired for playing games on company time :shrug:
if you were building a pc for someone that said " i email, do some office work, and my kid likes to play some games now and then", would you build a system with integrated graphics? is the argument that you should be able to build a system with integrated graphics in a case like this?
graphics cards are plenty cheap enough..
Yeah even big system builders like HP/Dell dont sell igps anymore when they market a pc that is able to "play" games.Quote:
Originally Posted by rozzyroz
Perfect HTPC processor.
The dual stream acceleration is nice. These could make for some great HTPC chips.
The particular part they reviewed will be priced at $143, compared to the E8400, priced at $183 at launch without an IGP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
So it's a bit apples & oranges: the new part is a bin or two down the "performance---mainstream---bargain" spectrum, compared to the old.
Alternatively, if you pop up to the E8400 launch pricing region, the equivalent Clarkdale products have Turbo Boost enabled (unlike the reviewed part), so performance will be nicely boosted in a number of the benchmarks.
Better IGP would get more people into PC Gaming IMO so i'm all for it. :up:
my old gm945 in my netbook runs Aero FINE... so Aero or user interface just simply isn't an excuse
so where is drwho? ;)
what was that francois? 2.5x performance of x4500 huh? ;)
roooiiighht... i told everybody a while back that perf isnt revolutionary at all :P
i wonder why charlie thought its going to be so great...
So are Intel giving up on offering performance oriented Dual Cores and just focussing on the value to mainstream segment only with their Duals?
He was almost right. The perf gain is 2x on average, sometime 2.5x. May be at the intro time it will be 3x with better drivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
The performance doesn't have to be revolutionary; this solution is ideal for workstations where no great graphics card needs to be present. And that part of the IT community is still larger than the gaming community.
Everyone can now play Crysis @ 9 frames per second.
So that means WoW should run on IGP... and thats good enough for Moms, Pops, kids & offices.
Micro and mini ITX boards for the general masses..! Those who want/need more, can plop a $89 DX11 card in and play whatever.
Gamerz are a different story and won't even bother in the first place, was that ever in question?
Some months ago we wrote a simple filtering software for a NGO for free. But alas they did not like the CUI so we made a GUI useing VB and Oracle. Even then ppl did not stop the complains such as this does not seem good with vista, etc. In the end we had to use flash based interface :yepp: all for noting since some older PC's were hanging trying to run the flash based GUI.Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
In performance i have no idea how flash can match the likes of VB + Oracle...
If things go in this direction ppl will like prettier and prettier GUI's and that will need GPU support in some situations.
Good power consumption result for workstation out there.
Am i the only one that noticed that GPU and CPU are seperate dies on one chip.
Just because the one used in review had poor performance doesn't mean that's what ALL chips will be stuck with. Intel can easily outfit different/better/worse GPU.
Heck, I'm sure if they were kind and generous enough to give nVIdia license, you could even see i5+GF9400 on one chip.
cpu performace isn't much better than e8400, which is surprising considering this is supposed to have HT
yeah... but the difference is that i3 is lowend and E8400 was midend when it was released... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by geo
So now you get previouse generation midend performance in the lowend bracket for lowend price. Good enough for me.
i'm confused
if one sticks an i3 in a P55 board how are you going to get VGA interface if the board doesnt have one....:confused: .... u'd still have to get a gfx card or a board that has a vga interface
+1 I dont understand this interface right now...Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Another (maybe stupid) question. is there any chance that there will be ANY mobo for this with dual video out? i want to build one HTPC and connect it to a standard 17" monitor for normal use and to a 32" LCD for movies and that kind of things.
Simple, you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
To make the IGP work, you need a PCH that support FDI (flexible display interface) and thats the H5x or the Q5x.
Quite entertaining, how fast people forget:
http://www.hkepc.com/2268
That was news back from Jan. 09. :D
Most likely i3 will need a different version of P55 mobo maybe something like a P7P55G :yepp: the difference a vga/hdmi port and maybe a increased price tag.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
It hardly comes close to GeForce 9400. And even 9400 is a crappy chip...
Quote:
Originally Posted by RejZoR
Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
this.
well i3 works with p55 we know that already
it's been posted online
i didnt realise that there will be boards with this Flexible interface thing
bit clearer now
I was expecting record low power consumption numbers for Intel's next-generation dual core. Oh well.
I don't think that is the point. Every computer I have every had at work had intergrated Intel graphic chips, and my company has literarly thousands of these types of PCs. The floor I'm working on right now has at least 30 PCs on it, and all of them have integrated graphics. It may not be good enough for games, but it works just fine for my job and the hundreds of people in my building running Office apps. This is the market they are going after and it will be quite large. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by RejZoR
Great and just how much are H5* and Q5* boards going to be?
There might be something like this to use the Clarkdale IGP on P55 boards:
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8280/dviaddcard.jpg
Does anybody know for sure if H55 boards will support Lynnfield ?
Same as P55... maybe some cheaper, as they are nothing more then Ibexpeak with FDI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingcarcas
H55 will be probably cheaper since there are some features cut, H57 a bit more expensive.
HD3300 + Athlon X2 5400+
At A time I played Crysis Low (Water on High) @800x600 with 25-40fps.
Anno 1404 25fps 1024x768 medium
Half Life 2 40FPS 800x600 High
Far Cry 45FPS 800x600 Very High
Quake 4 30FPS 800x600 High
Try to do that with an Intel IGP. Even a comparison between AMD/Nvidia IGP's vs an Intel one is just an insult to both of them.
The reality is that there are IGP's and "there are IGP's". Some people are just happy with the kind of gaming and IGP delivers (not wanting to spend more or just for the sake of having fun) when this things are not garbage(G45 for example).
AMD Fusion (Llano) has a DX11, UVD 3.0 GPU. Maybe an RV810 HD5200 @32nm. That will destroy any 780G/785G in 3D performance. Some people I know drool thinking about it (users on the cheapo side, internet cafe owners, mmo users)
if I was you guys, i would not trust performance measured with a driver that is 6 months before the launch ...
Just my 2 cents. Use your common sense, iGFX is not like a processor, it is heavily dependant on the maturity of the drivers ...
Francois
Drivers are something intel is not good at. Hope this changes with the i3 but most likely they are more focused on Larabee than i3 at this point of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
What difference does it make to integrate that if GMA950 could do just the same? I mean rendering 2D elements on desktop...Quote:
Originally Posted by sdsdv10
By integrating GPU into CPU core, you'd expect dramatic improvement, but it hardly justifies anything. For home users it's still better to buy i don't know, GeForce 8400GS for sub 30 eur price and be able to play most of stuff pretty well.
don't have to choose between GMA or Lrb ... both will be nice. :yepp: :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
oh interestingQuote:
Originally Posted by doompc
francois can you confirm this
how much will these cost?
I don t know, and If i did , I got to kill you after i say it ... lol :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Any i3 should work with current P55 boards even if I don't want IGPU, no? :)
because he's full of cr@p. :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
as are the graphics of these new chips. we didn't expect much else, this isn't news...
does arrandale have the same GMA as this chip (underclocked is still the same) ?
If there's even 10-15% improvement over this with new drivers as the Intel man says, its a very good chip IMHO, specially with same price tag as a P8600.
They've been around for years, it's the ADD2 cards. They're around $10-20 on ebay in PCIe x16 flavours. Works with most IGP's but unknown if it'll work with clarkdale though. If it supports Intel SDVO then it should work.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22