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

Thread: Benchmarking The Intel Ivy Bridge Gallium3D Driver

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by project_phelius View Post
    Intel has some "egg on their face" and "foot in their mouth" to gain here:
    1. if someone can finally prove that Gallium architecture is performant.
    2. leveraging gallium allowed 1/2 guys to do what took 20 Intel engineers.
    Well, it's still much slower, so they didn't really do what 20 intel engineers did.

    As far as I have seen it intel simply said "gallium is cool but we have been doing classic mesa and don't see much of a benefit of porting the code and learning that stuff etc. so we'll just keep doing what we were doing before".

    If i965g gets mainlined again and gets close in features (e.g. only OpenGL 2.1 right now) and performance maybe the intel developers switch over.

    Much activity lately, e.g. a very big merge from "origin/master" so I might even be outdated right now.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    6

    Default Intel versus NVidia / Nouveau performance

    While it is nice to see Intels commitment to Linux graphic drivers, I am still not impressed by the performance they deliver.
    While I understand that integrated GPUs always have some limitations, it is hardly acceptable for me to pay the $$$ or tag for any higher end Intel CPU.

    Here in Germany a typical Intel I7 Ivy bridge with HD4000 GPU costs about 250 to 300 alone.

    Keep in mind that we see around 77 FPS with Xonotic in 1024x768 with effects set to High.

    Not to sound too disrespectfull but my dog old system (AMD dual core with 2x2.7 GHz and a used GeForce 9800GT from the bay) was still very competetive back then when I did some benchmarks with it under Trisquel:
    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...BY-TRISQUEL546

    I tested 1280x1024 as max res since I had no other monitor available which supported a higher res. I consider 65 FPS with "high" effects and 44 FPS with Ultra "effect" very competetive. Especially since an AMD dual core with identical rating usually costs now 40-50 plus a cheap board and even faster NVidia cards are available under discount below 50.

    I think intel should either lower CPU prices in general or at least provide integrated GPUs at the performance level of a medium range NVidia card (e.g. 450 GTS or 650GTS).

    It would be interesting to see what performance I would get now out of my system with a Phenom Quadcore (4x3.2 GHz) plus GeForce 450GTS. I guess they will be a lot higher than what I benchmarked back then.

Posting Permissions

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