Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 66

Thread: 50% slower than AMD! Intel FAIL again with the HD4000 graphic hardware.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,621

    Default

    I really don't see the millions hardcore gamers that can only afford one notebook. Those simply spend 200 on a console and are usually happy with that. I know some hardcore gamers that just want to play and not to update gfx drivers and/or wait for patches just to be able to play the games. Especially amd has shown very bad opengl game support. Rage was released a few month ago and the recommended driver is still a "preview", now called 12.1a. id seems to wait for amd to publish a FINAL driver with all fixes before they ship the 2nd update for Rage. As opengl driver quality also matters for linux i would prefer to add an extra nvidia card. It does not need to be the fastest card, usually gtx 460 and above should be able to handle most of the top games with all effects enabled at full hd res. Intel onboard certainly does not, also amd onboard solutions are definitely nothing for full hd with everything turned on, maybe on lowest detail.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    I really don't see the millions hardcore gamers that can only afford one notebook.
    not hardcore gamers but there are millions of gamers.
    and amd is selling well to these people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    Those simply spend 200 on a console and are usually happy with that.
    I don't think so. gaming consoles are a underclass uneducated people phenomenon.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    926

    Default

    Even HD3000 is still much faster than AMD's fastest apu using OSS drivers.
    We need better drivers...
    ## VGA ##
    AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
    Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,621

    Default

    I really want to know which "millions" of gamers you mean, any statistics you have got where amd trinity chips are more important than intel gpus? If you look at

    http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

    they must be below 0.5% - just like the snb ones. the older intel mobile series 4 chips use at least 1.5% of the steam users. For browser games you dont need statistics, they run everywhere.
    Last edited by Kano; 01-18-2012 at 05:51 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    I stopped reading Q's posts long ago. Some months back, he was making some semi-good posts. Now he's just trolling all over the place.
    Yeah, especially when HE writes LIKE THIS.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    In my point of view Intel is just Incompetent they just can't build fast GPU's
    Afaik, they're not even trying. Their GPUs are licensed from PowerVR or something.
    But if you want to talk about "incompetent" maybe we should look at some market share charts. And I'm not talking just CPUs here, intel is present in market where AMD doesn't even exist (e.g. GPS nav). Market share not good enough? We can try revenue instead.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,621

    Default

    Thats not fully correct, intel has got some atom chips with powervr core, all other gfx cores are not licenced. But for win use the powervr drivers must really suck, only 32 bit possible, dx9 support even with dx11 hardware. flash does not seem to be accellerated yet and hdmi (hdcp) support is missing - in order to play bluray... I really want know if powervr manages to improve those drivers, for opengl (on android) they seem to be much better. And you should not forget there will be win 8 systems with arm core - those usually have got the same graphics solutions, so pvr has got something to do the next month as well

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Proze...r-1407338.html

    Intel Core i7-3920XM HD4000=3DMark11 P615
    AMD A8 HD6620G=3DMark11 P1625

    In my point of view Intel is just Incompetent they just can't build fast GPU's

    AMD beat Intel with 1 year old stuff and I think Intel need another year or 2 to get the other 50% speed to.
    I don't understand the premise of the article: in 3D intensive applications, with DX 11, you can likely get "up-to" 50 percent extra performance. This is not that bad and not that good, is the same difference between pre-Sandy Bridge and Sandy Bridge. Even SB offers decent graphics, I use SB to my external 1920x1200 display, and is not slow for whatever Fedora/Gnome 3 is capable: non shuttering animations, and so on. There is a hardware that is 50% faster (like Ivy Bridge!?), I think is not noticeable. There is a hardware that is even extra 50% faster. So on graphics Intel is one generation after AMD, but on CPU is one in front. Also, Ivy comes with lower TDP, if the future will stand as Intel talks, and this would mean, that games will work basically the same (as a bit faster CPU will compensate the "strong" Bulldozer core on laptops).
    At the end I do hope to appear a general purpose laptop that can install Ubuntu (or any other popular distro like Fedora or openSuse) using ARM, and include nice hardware like NVidia Kal-El, I don't want the ultimate APU to look on Youtube, edit a document in LibreOffice or reading email. And when I'm working I will still work with higher end workstation which does not take advantage of the integrated graphics.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ciplogic View Post
    I don't understand the premise of the article: in 3D intensive applications, with DX 11, you can likely get "up-to" 50 percent extra performance. This is not that bad and not that good, is the same difference between pre-Sandy Bridge and Sandy Bridge. Even SB offers decent graphics, I use SB to my external 1920x1200 display, and is not slow for whatever Fedora/Gnome 3 is capable: non shuttering animations, and so on. There is a hardware that is 50% faster (like Ivy Bridge!?), I think is not noticeable. There is a hardware that is even extra 50% faster. So on graphics Intel is one generation after AMD, but on CPU is one in front. Also, Ivy comes with lower TDP, if the future will stand as Intel talks, and this would mean, that games will work basically the same (as a bit faster CPU will compensate the "strong" Bulldozer core on laptops).
    At the end I do hope to appear a general purpose laptop that can install Ubuntu (or any other popular distro like Fedora or openSuse) using ARM, and include nice hardware like NVidia Kal-El, I don't want the ultimate APU to look on Youtube, edit a document in LibreOffice or reading email. And when I'm working I will still work with higher end workstation which does not take advantage of the integrated graphics.
    ""up-to" 50 percent extra performance."

    means its the slow hd3000+50%

    this is just marketing speech first you put a product with 0 FPS and a product with 1FPS and then you make a commercial with an "unlimited" speed up.

    in absolute numbers its just slow.

    its so slow intel need to cheat with an video played in a VLC player;



    Intel just FAIL!
    Last edited by Qaridarium; 01-18-2012 at 07:46 PM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    104

    Default

    Sounds like someone was trolled into buying bulldozer and needs to justify his awful purchase.

    Maybe it's worth waiting until Intel have actually finished the Ivy Bridge drivers before judging them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •