Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Intel Makes More Driver Improvements For Valve's L4D2

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,634

    Default

    I would prefer changes to make Rage work with wine. It is very bad that you need binary drivers to run it - and the game is pure OpenGL - means basically same speed as a native Linux binary.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureSuture View Post
    My apologies for this ignorant question, but what's the point? Intel isn't known for gaming, at least as far as I know. Nvidia and AMD are. Shouldn't the focus be on those two?
    Whose focus? Kenneth works for Intel.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattst88 View Post
    Whose focus?
    He meant Valve, but then yes, it's Intel that did the improvements, after all.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    and for intel its good to make here progress especialy for valve because 90% of all people have intel-gpus in use, and yes such low-end grafics games are also played on such systems.
    12% of Steam users http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

  5. #15

    Default

    Good on Intel then, but can someone name some games that run well on Intel graphics chips?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,130

    Default

    OpenArena 0.8.5

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJSB View Post
    No matter whatever Intel or AMD might ever say, integrated graphics will ALWAYS suck compared with a even average dedicated GC.

    ....and if you think otherwise, you are clueless about hardware PC design and serious gaming
    Or maybe you're the one that is clueless? Historically IGPs sucked because DDR1/DDR2 did not have enough bandwidth to satisfy both the CPU and the GPU. This is already better with DDR3, the GPU part AMD Trinity APU gets pretty close to the performance of a mid-range dedicated GPU, it's mostly the CPU part that limits your frame rate on any AMD APU. And with DDR4 memory IGPs will actually get a chance to challenge the highend dedicated GPUs.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,062

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ansla View Post
    Or maybe you're the one that is clueless? Historically IGPs sucked because DDR1/DDR2 did not have enough bandwidth to satisfy both the CPU and the GPU. This is already better with DDR3, the GPU part AMD Trinity APU gets pretty close to the performance of a mid-range dedicated GPU, it's mostly the CPU part that limits your frame rate on any AMD APU. And with DDR4 memory IGPs will actually get a chance to challenge the highend dedicated GPUs.
    But DDR4 is still some years in the future.
    By then, there maybe is GDDR6.

    What is high-end today is low-end tomorrow.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,130

    Default

    You are ignoring the on-cpu memory on some Haswell variants. Possibly in future AMD cpus too, but nothing heard about them on that yet.

Posting Permissions

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