Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics

phoronix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 35 posts

Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics

#11

Post by sprash »

akurilin wrote: post #2

What 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…

As soon as WebGL gets mainstream a certain amount of graphics power is mandatory for every Computer out there just to be able to surf the web. If it is not WebGL some kind of other advanced 3D technology will be used in future web applications.

Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics

#13

Post by wisty »

reitzensteinm wrote: post #7
akurilin wrote: post #2

What 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 tha…

nVidia chipset graphics were better than Intel's earliest iterations, which is why Apple took so long to upgrade from C2D + nVidia (that, and costs).

You're right - Intel (like nVidia's chipset) gives you a GPU that's a rung below the cheapest current cards. In the bad old days, it used to be an order of magnitude worse if you were lucky, and wouldn't run your game in the worst case.

Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics

#14

Post by batgaijin »

akurilin wrote: post #2

What 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…

Remember when everybody had a sound card?

Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics

#15

Post by justincormack »

akurilin wrote: post #2

What 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 have open source specs and drivers, so they are the best you can get under Linux! Most display managers use compositing now so need some sort of GPU.

Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics

#16

Post by ksec »

akurilin wrote: post #2

What 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…

As a matter of fact it is catching up quite nicely. Haswell are looking at 2.5x of current HD4000 performance. And Broadwell will do another 2x of Haswell.

These performance would have been nice if not for Retina display manages to use 4x the pixel on screen. Things are just never fast enough.

Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics

#17

Post by karavelov »

I was looking to buy mobo + ivy bridge CPU and I could not find a motherboard that could drive my display that need dual link DVI or display port - most of them have HDMI that could drive Full HD but not bigger monitors (my display is 24" 16:10, so it is not something extraordinary). So I am waiting for Ivy Bridge processors and chipsets without integrated GPU (like Sandy Bridge i7-3820)

Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics

#18

Post by klausa »

akurilin wrote: post #2

What 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 for gaming, but they're good-enough for gaming. My '11 MBP (13", Intel HD 3000) runs Portal 2, Diablo 3 and, really, most of the new games I throw at it surprisingly well.

Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics

#19

Post by buster »

akurilin wrote: post #2

What 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…

Nahh, not everyone needs to play the latest games in the highes details on a FullHD screen.

I remember playing CS and UT years ago on centrino notebook with intel graphics and it was all i needed. Now those chpis can do a lot more, so i'm looking forward to get away with that horrible dual-graphics setup in my notebook in the future :)

Re: Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics

#20

Post by fiatmoney »

akurilin wrote: post #2

What 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 also (Ivy Bridge and onwards) support OpenCL/DX11 compute, which is great for certain math-intensive and stream-oriented tasks.
Post reply on HN