Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by duskwuff » Mon, Aug 27, 2012, 3:45 PM UTC

nathanb wrote: post #28

Do I just fail at reading, or do these benchmarks lack any context? 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.

The number I've heard somewhere -- don't quote me on this! -- is that the Intel HD4000 GPU is roughly on par with a low-end ($150 to $200) discrete GPU from either ATI or nVidia. It's certainly nothing to write home about, but it's more than sufficient for most tasks, and even workable for some light gaming.

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

#32

Post by nemetroid » Mon, Aug 27, 2012, 4:02 PM UTC

duskwuff wrote: post #31

nathanb wrote: post #28

Do I just fail at reading, or do these benchmarks lack any context? 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.

The number I've heard somewhere -- don't quote me on this! -- is that the Intel HD4000 GPU is roughly on par with a low-end ($150 to $200) discrete GPU from either ATI or nVidia. It's certainly nothing to write home about, but it's more than sufficient for most tasks, and even workable for some light gaming.

I believe you're correct that it's roughly on par with a low-end discrete GPU, but your price point is way off. $50 to $75 is more appropriate.

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

#33

Post by batista » Mon, Aug 27, 2012, 4:30 PM UTC

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…

>What exactly is Intel trying to achieve with these integrated GPUs?

A better performance/energy consumption ratio for lightweight laptops?

>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.

No they are not. But then again, very few GPUs are actually used for gaming. Most people over 25 use their computers for others tasks (including all enterprise and work computers).

>Are they intended for everyday computing purposes that might require graphics acceleration, such as high end display managers?

Most computer use today requires graphics acceleration. From browsing the web (canvas), to watching an HD movie, to talking on Skype/Facetime.

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

#34

Post by greyfade » Mon, Aug 27, 2012, 5:43 PM UTC

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…

Intel has been doing graphics parts for ages - going back to their i740 in the '90s all the way through their GMA family of northbridges.

They've always been equivalent to low-end previous-generation parts from ATi and NVIDIA. They've never had anything even remotely comparable until the HD 4000, and even that is a bad joke.

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

#35

Post by greyfade » Mon, Aug 27, 2012, 5:45 PM UTC

salmanapk wrote: post #30

karavelov wrote: post #17

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)

Are processors without integrated GPU cheaper or what?

I'd imagine they are, since they're all 2-3 generations old and relegated to the "USED" bin.