21–30 of 35 posts
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)
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)
As far as I know 1920x1200 does not require DL-DVI; normal DVI should be sufficient.
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…
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…
As a sidenote, John Carmack was reasonably enthusiastic about the latest generation Intel integrated graphics at QuakeCon 2012 (at YouTube you can find the whole 3,5 hour talk).
From http://pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/John-Carmacks-QuakeCon-20...:
"Several factors have pushed iD in this direction. First off the hardware is now good enough overall for gaming. The latest Intel processors have a graphics portion that is entirely able to run games at decent resolutions and quality settings."
Personally I started playing Counterstrike: Global Offense last week on my 2012 MacBook Air and it performs well (medium settings) on the integrated Intel HD Graphics 4000.
That's fairly weird to benchmark. Why not check for video acceleration and that kind of stuff? Actually realistic use cases for those chips.
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…
For some applications this is an enormous benefit. For an office computer, which doesn't require high-end 3D to start with, the HD4000 will be more than good enough.
They're meant for gaming, but not performance gaming. You can play something like Starcraft 2 on it without much trouble if you tune it down to "Low" settings. It just doesn't look anywhere near as amazing as it would on "Ultra".
The question I want answered is how these chipsets compare with other offerings. The context I would like to see is the same tests run on low/mid/high-end AMD and nVidia parts using both the open-source and proprietary drivers.
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…
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.
Now, I might be a bit bitter because I had two different nvidia chips in two different laptops die on my a grand total of 4 times, all due to faults on nvidia's part, accentuated by not-ideal thermal design in either laptop. That led to my decision that no matter what, my next notebook (whenever/whatever that will be...) will not have a discrete GPU, but will use chipset graphics. At least there, only one thermal source has to be dealt with and Intel will hopefully produce reasonable specs for that.
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)