Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: Mesa 9.1 Results Are Mixed For Radeon Gallium3D

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Let me start by saying that I'm biased so you guys should probably take this with a few grains of salt....

    I have heard that recent Intel APU's actually do have decent graphics cores.... But I think that -must- be relative to what they used to make.... It is my experience that they are incapable of producing decent graphics cores. Of course I come from a workstation background at a dell only shop and found out the hard way that Intel graphics arent even adequate to run a 2d desktop. I'm talking about waiting up to 30 seconds just for windows to draw. I just can't picture anything they produce being capable of any kind of 3d rendering...... Even if it has the capability I doubt very much it has the performance.

    I'd bet my next 2 paychecks that Intel's CPU is faster at 3d rendering than there GPU.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Let me start by saying that I'm biased so you guys should probably take this with a few grains of salt....

    I have heard that recent Intel APU's actually do have decent graphics cores.... But I think that -must- be relative to what they used to make.... It is my experience that they are incapable of producing decent graphics cores. Of course I come from a workstation background at a dell only shop and found out the hard way that Intel graphics arent even adequate to run a 2d desktop. I'm talking about waiting up to 30 seconds just for windows to draw. I just can't picture anything they produce being capable of any kind of 3d rendering...... Even if it has the capability I doubt very much it has the performance.

    I'd bet my next 2 paychecks that Intel's CPU is faster at 3d rendering than there GPU.
    You would loose imho. Here is what goes with current Intel IGPs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF0X1...1F6B94AC0738F9 .

    I still would recommend AMD/NV hw for gamers.
    Last edited by log0; 02-07-2013 at 05:56 PM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    OK, so at the time of this writing what we have is a $300 APU that is about 20% slower on graphics than a $90 APU......

    Not as bad as I thought, but still pretty bad.

    EDIT: of course that same Intel APU would wipe the floor on compute tasks though.
    Last edited by duby229; 02-07-2013 at 07:53 PM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Of course I come from a workstation background at a dell only shop and found out the hard way that Intel graphics arent even adequate to run a 2d desktop. I'm talking about waiting up to 30 seconds just for windows to draw.
    Sorry, but that's FUD.

    If anything, that was badly written application, not drivers. If you're watching a motion picture the card is drawing at least 24 frames a second, every second.

    All cards that couldn't update their frame buffers at least few times a second become extinct in the early 90's...

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Yeah, thats kinda the point... Like I said I don't have any experience with the newer Intel APU's, but I know the older ones were not adequate even for 2d at a time when everything else was.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Yeah, thats kinda the point... Like I said I don't have any experience with the newer Intel APU's, but I know the older ones were not adequate even for 2d at a time when everything else was.
    The newer Intel APU's are equivalent to low-end GPUs. Which is a huge improvement over their old hardware.

    I certainly wouldn't recommend getting one if you intend to game, or use other 3d intensive apps, though. But they're great now for normal desktop usage and the occasional light gaming.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    OK, so at the time of this writing what we have is a $300 APU that is about 20% slower on graphics than a $90 APU......

    Not as bad as I thought, but still pretty bad.

    EDIT: of course that same Intel APU would wipe the floor on compute tasks though.
    G2020, a 40$ APU from Intel with basic HD2000, drives 2D, composite and 3D with enough power for office and light gaming in 1920x1080, Q3 included. Scrolling is so fast, I had a jaw drop. Incomparable with AMD, which is slower 3D, worse 2D, less performance and much more power hungry.
    Last edited by brosis; 03-17-2013 at 11:56 AM.

Posting Permissions

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