http://www.donanimhaber.com/image.as...ic_dh_fx57.jpg
BTW, a test:
http://www.donanimhaber.com/image.as...2_dh_fx571.jpg
Source: http://forum.donanimhaber.com/m_36787450/tm.htm
Printable View
Since its listed under asia section its quite a concern for all those koreans... :p:
Gosh! , it CAN play Sims 3 and WoW :eek:, why did they miss out CS/CS:S :p:
PS: I hope this list isnt of those games that WILL work, not like you get a big black screen in others as seen in most of the tests with H55 IGPs :rofl:
lol.. world of warcraft..
maybe when u play with 3 or 4 ppl..
Try again with a 40 man raid.
So all those games on that list are top mainstream games?
World of Warcraft isn't playable at all, unless you slow down your brain.
i just cant get what intel trying to prove.
...that ION sucks? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by kromosto
"Top Mainstream Game"
"Lego Indiana Jones"
Heavy says: YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYES!
lol intel still failing on graphics no wonder they cancelled LRB :rolleyes:
I used to play Brood War on a Trident 9680 with 512KB of RAM. I'd at least hope a modern IGP could play that:p:
This is such a fail advertisement.
some PCs from almost 15 years ago can to!
Is "Pro Cycling Manager 2009" really a top game? I barely understand football games makes all the top US charts, but Pro Cycling?
Anyway, yes, fail advertising from Intel on this one.
I can play Fifa 2009 with this new technology?
Amazing!
intel igp's - theerre grrreeaatt!
tony the tiger.
Intel couldn't do well other than X86
including their SSD
lolz
I am a strange sort of fellow; my humour is a bit different.
So, when I read threads dripping with sarcasm and embarasing advertisements featured in the headline, my mind begins to wander.
For example, the Mola Ram character from "The Temple of Doom" movie proudly proclaims that "soon, we will have all the five Shankara stones, and the Thuggees will be all powerful," to which Indiana Jones replies "What a vivid imagination." I pretend the Mola Ram character is an Intel spokesman proclaiming the virtues of the new IGP.
We bring you the most amazing product ever, you can play some games at 800x600 on the lowest quality settings with it:yepp:
yeah right ever checked what a normal resolution is today?:rofl:
Yeah, it would be (mostly) unbelievable if the S3 graphics chip on my 100 MHz Pentium Socket 7 motherboard would still be able to play something that Intel's newest IGP can't :DQuote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Lead Head
Let's be clear, if you want to play high end game, use a GFX card ... but keep in mind that only 8% of the PC sold are used for games, and only 10% of the 8% play high end games ... Intel iGFx is getting more capable, this is a good new, you ll probably surprise when you OC it :)
This iGFx will be good enough for most of the people, and if you want to play high end game, buy a GFX card. The principal goal of intel is to provide PCs for every body on this planete, and to do so, we can't have every body running 200Watt GFX cards. a 200watts time the number of PCs needed for everybody on earth would be an ecological catastrophie. 0.8% of the people do what you people do here, so, please try to see this side of the story too.
(I expect to be flamed, as usual, but it is good to give the explanation for those interested into the Math behind all of this)
Francois
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
I am not intended to flame you but AMD and Nvidia come out better graphic solution (and those are cheap one) currently
I don't think Intel's motherboard without graphic processor build in cost $30 more expensive than the one without, especially new chipset for i3 & i5 with
graphic output. i3 & i5 with iGP would be more ideal for notebook segment but it doesn't really make sense for desktop
At least, when AMD is offering much better IGP solution than Intel does.
I think you will be surprise on this ... :yepp: not much longer to wait :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by haylui
Francois
But with Gameboy Color (sorry DS) level graphics!Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Actually no, we have now Regina, a semi-Pro gamer in the performance lab that spend/spent her time figuring out what playable means, and putted minimum visual requirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by initialised
No bad surprise!
Francois
Lego Star Wars I required 8500 level graphics on PC when it came out (and doesn't need to since it looks fine and gameplay is spot on). AFAIK the engine has not changed much since then except for being scaled back to run on GameCube (sorry Wii), PS2 and Wii. However, I am willing to test this theory once I have a H55 board to put my i3 540 ES into.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Lead Head
How the hell is that news? :confused:
Talking about the article itself... Well, the performance increase is decent, I'd be expecting 2x instead of 50%, though...
That I can buy. But WoW at playable framerates on that IGP is pretty much a lie. Maybe if you were taking a solitary hike through an unpopulated server, but I doubt you could even walk around coherently in town.Quote:
Originally Posted by initialised
people who play WoW on a non gaming computer, probably play the solo lvling game. as long as you stay in the old worlds, you probably can play it in a semi enjoyable rate. i use to 40man raid with a 9600pro at 1200x800 medium settings.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
You forget a little detail, the new iGFX has DDRIII with enough bandwidth to do not starve at rasterization time (Texture sampling), and many other cool tricks are used to accelerate, This architecture is much more efficent than the previous one for DX and OpenGL.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Wait a little bit before saying it is a lie. Thanks to be fair. And remember, no extra power consumption (No 200W), and low cost.
Francois
Nvidia's and ATI's IGP solutions put Intel's to shame. Why don't they simply drop their IGP and opt to use Nvidia's? (They wouldn't really get ATI's since now it's part of AMD).
Really, PC Gaming got a huge hit on the last decade thanks to every freaking Intel PC sold having a crappy IGP that would not run Solitaire without lagging on the jumping cards winning animation...
Francois, now you sound more like a marketer than an engineer! :D And speaking of the competition (200W), Cedar will be launching at the same time at <8W and will blow this thing out of the water. heh
[edit]
Bingo! My thoughts exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontos
I can play WC3 on my 1000HE...
StarCraft Brood War is like a national sport in South Korea. They have TV channels (that's plural) almost soly dedicated to it. Both the Ongamenet Starleague and the MBCgame Starleague are viewed by millions.
During the World Cyber Games there is one game that has more viewers than most of the other games combined ... Star Craft.
Don't mock the game :p:
//Andreas
It would probably run nice on my 450MHz K6-II and 32MB AGP SiS video card with 128MB of speedy SIMM memory... :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Lead Head
It runs Windows 2000 nice, I play flight sim 95 with my old Gravis Blackhawk, and play Civilization II since it wont work on my 64bit PCs. :p:
Which in turn, puts console gaming in a very attractive light.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontos
You're joking?Quote:
Originally Posted by NH|Delph1
Seems the Koreans have found something they love even more then fish heads.
Lol where have you been living the past few years?Quote:
Originally Posted by BatteryOperated
On the moon? :p:
Mediival II:Total war stands out in that group. I doubt it would be playable at high res, going by that chart with the rest of those older games
The main issue is not the fact that the IGP cannot play high-end games at decent resulotion, it's the marketing that is trying to send a message an completely fails to deliver what it's supposed to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Try to convince your fellow Intel-colleagues to switch from "top mainstream games" to "occassional games". Closer to the truth and much less embarrassing :).
Indeed. I thought the Korean's unbelievable love in SC was well known everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Francois,
Even my Mom plays Win 7 games and Sims, YouTube, watches movies and uses Windows Aero...
I built her computer using a $89 motherboard (MSI 785GM-E65), which has an (ATI Radeon HD 4200 GPU) IGP.... That I managed to play Battlefield 2142 on, over the holidays..!
Most people have no reason to buy a video card right now, unless they need DirectX 11 support, or actually need more power... such as if they buy a system with the anemic Intel IGP !!
Yes, Intel's IGP performance is horrid..! That list proves it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by strange|ife
agreed - there is no way that IGP will play that on any decent res - let alone when there is 10,000 troops on the field
I'm glad to hear that Intel is making a better IGP but I'm underwhelmed by the rate of progress when compared to the competition.
or a 9300m or 785GQuote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
and yet every PC with preinstalled windows ships with games(at least pinball) I have to rip those things out with Nlite to keep the secretaries from wasting all their time ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
While not many PCs are purchased for exclusive use as gaming machines I'd wager very few indeed have never been used to play games at all. One must bear in mind that yesterdays "high end games" are tommorows low end games. Counterstrike anyone?
wow, these are pretty awesome results.... :D
/sarcasm
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news....aspx?pageid=4
hmmm looks like it might have been removed.
anyway, here's a quote from the article, taken from IV.
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd....sg&mid=8379841Quote:
Intel 32nm Clarkdale Core i5 661 Dual Core CPU + GPU Evaluation - Bright Side Of News*
"If you look back at the battle between AMD and Intel you will see something that is both interesting and funny at the same time. This is a comical little irony that has been repeated over and over for more than a few years. What is the ironic happening? Well it is where AMD dreams up an idea and talks about it openly only to have someone else bring the product to market. We saw this with the first Dual Core CPUs. Intel came out with the Pentium D on May 25th 2005. This was roughly two months before AMD released the First Athlon 64 X2 in August of 2005 [although the X2 was a massively superior CPU]. The same thing was again see when Intel beat AMD to the Quad Core punch by almost a year with Kenstfield [which ended up outperforming AMD’s native Quad Core]. Naturally, we can debate is this of sheer Intel's engineering power, market position or just the fact that AMD has a permanent habit of roadmap slip-ups that started with the original K8 architecture.
Regardless of the reason, we see the same thing happening all over again. AMD has been talking of moving the GPU onto the CPU for a very long time, a strategy called Fusion. Originally, first Fusion products were supposed to show on the market in 2009 but that obviously didn't happen. Unfortunately for AMD, they have yet to take the first steps towards that goal. Instead we see Intel taking that Idea and again bringing the first steps to market in the form of the Dual Core 32nm Clarkdale CPU. Let’s take a look at this interesting new CPU from Intel and see if it will be remembered like the Pentium-D or the Core 2 Quad."
They got the chip to 4.3 with the IGP enabled, and 4.5 without it. Doesn't seem a whole lot different that todays chips do they?? And as suspected, graphics performance was not good at all.
Also, completey disagree with the bolded part. AMD has been firing on all cylinders since Barcelona's 65nm process issues, releasing product after product ahead of schedule. Most notably Istanbul which was 6 MONTHS ahead of schedule. If there's been slips on roadmaps, it's been from intel and NV, not AMD.
Wait and see ... not too long before you see the result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightstar
I think you will have a pleasant surprise :yepp: :cool:
Francois
Whatever be the case the performance around 90%+ will at least push AMD to release something better than the 3200-4200 "They are more or less very similar"
Nvidia is also stuck with 9300-9400 performance level.
Out of the list i have played Fifa 2009, FM 09 , Sims 2/3, WoW, Starcraft BW and Rangnarok.. Yay i am mainstream also BTW the ASIA list is more China than ASIA...
I dunno dude, from what I saw on the BSN article there isn't anything to be pleasantly surprised about. Unless of course you have your expectations set extremely low. :D And of course that's if you are talking in terms of relative to previous intel igp's and not the competitions. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Well they needed to, considering how much of a failure the original Phenom was. The way I see it, currently AMD is merely doing what's required of them [for survival]. Nothing more nothing less. Yes Phenom II looks good--but that's because we tend to compare it to Phenom 1 and Core 2 (a terribly underwhelming architecture and an architecture that has just been retired, respectively). Instead, we should be comparing Phenom II to Nehalem and perhaps Westmere (because it looks like Bulldozer isn't arriving fast enough). When you look at it in that light, Phenom II (and AMD's execution of its roadmaps) just doesn't look that impressive anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
Also, aside from Larrabee (the first gen consumer card), I don't see any major slips from Intel. Nvidia on the other hand...
let's compare the scores when it comes out with the other IGP :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
(And let's ignore if both IGP run under 15FPS, since it is not playable for sure, playable starts at 30FPS (Personal opinion))
That's enough to make a point.
I just hope that Intel has improved compatability/bug fixes alongside performance. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
There's AION and Maplestory on the same list... Enough said.
Sure, but let's do it without the need for conditions that favour intel.. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Welcome to 1998. Intel's IGP would be considered a triumph when placed against Rendition Verite 2 and 3DFX 6000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Getting the picture?
Intel, when it comes to graphics chips, is Gilligan's Island when compared to ATI and NVIDIA.
What..?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesker
AMD's AM3 Phenom II X4 955 @ $165 is hard to beat... How can you say AMD is only surviving, when it is Intel that seems to be loosing the consumer's confidence and over-pricing their products?
Beside the freaks here, what % of the population needs more than a 3.2Ghz, $165 quad-core..?
So, please compare the PII to Nehalem, what you get is a bunch of people laughing @ Intel. The LGA1156 is flawed... with an anemic PCI bus. So why spend $280 on a CPU, that sits on an inferior platform..?
It's called a computer SYSTEM for a reason.
I don't suppose there's any chance to merge this thread with Nvidia ION sux's - Intel "For Netbooks" that I may savor some delicious irony? and witness true spin doctor madness.
I think Intel should pay AMD another 1,5 billion.. this time buying all their graphic technologies.
...and what do you think selling the top of the line CPU for under $200 is doing to AMD's profitability and growth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
Also, take a step back and look at the markets segments together. Core 2 has always dominated AMD in the laptop market (and it seems Nehalem will continue with Arrandale), while the QPI in Nehalem (as well as an increase in IPC) has removed AMD's advantage in the server/workstation sector.
What part of LGA1156 is flawed? Are you referring to the PCIE controller on LGA1156 processors? If people don't need anything more than 3.20GHz quad cores, then what makes you think 32 PCI-E lanes are necessary?
I really don't get how see people laughing at Intel when you compare Phenom II to Nehalem... :confused:
What AMD needs is an answer to Nehalem and Westmere. Phenom II was a [very late] answer to Core 2.
If you had $150 or less to spend, AMD has that market pretty much locked up if you are interested in raw performance. How is that bad?
and Intel dare to label their graphics as HD :rofl::rofl::ROTF::ROTF: