Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics
phoronix.com
Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics
1–10 of 35 posts
Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics
#2What exactly is Intel trying to achieve with these integrated GPUs? It seems that performance-wise they're quite far below discrete graphics cards, so I'd guess that they're not really meant for gaming.
Are they intended for everyday computing purposes that might require graphics acceleration, such as high end display managers?
I'd certainly love to see them enter the graphics card arena and compete with ATI/Nvidia by having phenomenal open source drivers. I'd vote for that with my wallet.
Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics
#3What exactly is Intel trying to achieve with these integrated GPUs? It seems that performance-wise they're quite far below discrete graphics cards, so I'd guess that they're not really meant for gaming. Are they intended for everyday computing purposes that might require graphics acceleration, such as high end display managers? I'd certainly love to see them enter the graphics card arena and compete with ATI/Nvidia b…
These GPUs are cheaper since they are directly integrated in the microprocessor. Performance wise, I think they are still better than the GMA line of Intel processors, and they provide support for latest DirectX out of the box.
With the HD 4000 I heard you can play some of the relatively recent games at lower resolution and low details.
Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics
#4To Phoronix people: Please do not use terrible link ads.
Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics
#5What exactly is Intel trying to achieve with these integrated GPUs? It seems that performance-wise they're quite far below discrete graphics cards, so I'd guess that they're not really meant for gaming. Are they intended for everyday computing purposes that might require graphics acceleration, such as high end display managers? I'd certainly love to see them enter the graphics card arena and compete with ATI/Nvidia b…
They're not meant to do anything other than exist. It's used as a low end way to make a PC actually have a graphics card, you know, that can display Microsoft Word prettily enough with Aero. That's what Intel cards started out as.
Moving forward, they're giving the cards enough power to help render movie times, playing games such as League of Legends casually at low (think 1366 by 768, not 1080p) resolutions and medium settings, etc that can satisfy 90% of user needs.
Maybe in a few years Intel will make their own graphics cards that can compare in power to current Nvidia and ATI cards. Until then, these cards serve as cheap stuff that can be found on every computer.
Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics
#6What exactly is Intel trying to achieve with these integrated GPUs? It seems that performance-wise they're quite far below discrete graphics cards, so I'd guess that they're not really meant for gaming. Are they intended for everyday computing purposes that might require graphics acceleration, such as high end display managers? I'd certainly love to see them enter the graphics card arena and compete with ATI/Nvidia b…
For me it's an optimal solution. Apart from an occasional game of quake, all my activity is in the terminal / browser / media player. Having 3d support is OK, but buying any serious graphics card would be a waste of money. And it's still better than previous i915.
Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics
#7What exactly is Intel trying to achieve with these integrated GPUs? It seems that performance-wise they're quite far below discrete graphics cards, so I'd guess that they're not really meant for gaming. Are they intended for everyday computing purposes that might require graphics acceleration, such as high end display managers? I'd certainly love to see them enter the graphics card arena and compete with ATI/Nvidia b…
Intel's only three generations into on die GPUs - starting with the 32nm Westmere dual core chips.
They don't even have DRAM on the chip yet - normal graphics cards use monstrously high bandwidth connections (10x higher than DDR3) to stream in textures. HD 4000 et al just access main memory, competing with the CPU for bandwidth.
They might be unimpressive now, but it's a focus of Intel to keep improving them, and that will happen significantly faster than Moore's Law.
Also, it's wrong to compare them to discrete graphics cards. They're cheap and low power, used in the MacBook Air. They replace the much inferior Intel integrated graphics and nVidia chipset graphics (used in the original Air).
They're now nipping at the heels of low end discrete graphics chips (especially on laptops). That's a great thing.
As a game developer, I'm excited by them. My games will run badly, but at least now they'll run on even the cheapest computers.
Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics
#8That's fairly weird to benchmark. Why not check for video acceleration and that kind of stuff? Actually realistic use cases for those chips.
Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics
#9What exactly is Intel trying to achieve with these integrated GPUs? It seems that performance-wise they're quite far below discrete graphics cards, so I'd guess that they're not really meant for gaming. Are they intended for everyday computing purposes that might require graphics acceleration, such as high end display managers? I'd certainly love to see them enter the graphics card arena and compete with ATI/Nvidia b…
They're meant to differentiate their CPUs, and find a good use for the billions of transistors that their process technology allows them to include in their designs. So the question is, what's better: more cache, more cores (diminishing returns after 4), or a specialized accelerator for 3D, video and generic heavily parallel computations (GPGPU)?
Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics
#10What exactly is Intel trying to achieve with these integrated GPUs? It seems that performance-wise they're quite far below discrete graphics cards, so I'd guess that they're not really meant for gaming. Are they intended for everyday computing purposes that might require graphics acceleration, such as high end display managers? I'd certainly love to see them enter the graphics card arena and compete with ATI/Nvidia b…
On notebooks they let you save battery life by not using the discrete graphics at all for a larger proportion of desktop graphics activity. On desktops and notebooks they make the graphics not completely suck without having to have a separate GPU, making low-end computers be cheaper.