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...