[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Ivy Bridge Graphics: Entry-Level Cards are Dead here

[harz]

Wow those benchmarks are terrible. Sure, it may be twice as fast as the last-gen onboard GPUs, but its still pretty much worthless. Arkham City is barely playable in DX10 mode. Wake me up when Intel actually learns how to make a REAL GPU.

[robotortoise]

harz, on 23 April 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

Wow those benchmarks are terrible. Sure, it may be twice as fast as the last-gen onboard GPUs, but its still pretty much worthless. Arkham City is barely playable in DX10 mode. Wake me up when Intel actually learns how to make a REAL GPU.

Yeah, but that's exactly the point: It's NOT a GPU. It's a CPU, and it just happens to have a built-in GPU so if Mom buys a computer, she can play Farmville, and little Johnny can play some games, too.
Built-in graphics aren't for serious gamers, and they're no trying to be. There's no reason to pay for a GPU if the consumer doesn't want it.

[harz]

robotortoise, on 23 April 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

harz, on 23 April 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

Wow those benchmarks are terrible. Sure, it may be twice as fast as the last-gen onboard GPUs, but its still pretty much worthless. Arkham City is barely playable in DX10 mode. Wake me up when Intel actually learns how to make a REAL GPU.

Yeah, but that's exactly the point: It's NOT a GPU. It's a CPU, and it just happens to have a built-in GPU so if Mom buys a computer, she can play Farmville, and little Johnny can play some games, too.
Built-in graphics aren't for serious gamers, and they're no trying to be. There's no reason to pay for a GPU if the consumer doesn't want it.

Actually you're wrong, it IS a GPU. Intel sees their GPUs as competitors to a separate GPU. (Just look at the article title if you don't believe me.) Farmville, as far as I know, doesn't use any GPU whatsoever, unless it uses Flash's support for GPU acceleration. (I've never played such a trite game, myself.) If all a GPU is going to do is power Windows Aero, then the last-gen could accomplish that. The problem here is that Intel thinks that somehow their GPUs are going to replace a GPU card in things like ultrabooks which it spends millions (if not billions) of dollars pushing. But if a so-called ULTRAbook can't play games, it ISN'T very ultra. It's just a thin generic laptop that may/may not get good battery life. I cannot see what the point of touting "more power!" is unless that "more power!" translates into something usable. And here it clearly doesn't. 12fps in games is not usable. Little Johnny will probably be miserable playing his games on that kind of "speed."

[BDKennedy]

Agreed. This processor was WAY over-hyped.

[MLStrand56]

Everybody who uses a mobo with integraged video, is Accepting Sub-Quality video.

That goes for Audio as well.

If you want Great Video...Buy a Video Card!!!

If you want Great Audio...Buy a GOOD audio card!!!

MLStrand56

[RamonChiNangWong]

Intel Graphics...
Actually no one cares if it isn't nVidia or Radeaon

and sadly Intel has none of those

[yu119995]

robotortoise, on 23 April 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

harz, on 23 April 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

Wow those benchmarks are terrible. Sure, it may be twice as fast as the last-gen onboard GPUs, but its still pretty much worthless. Arkham City is barely playable in DX10 mode. Wake me up when Intel actually learns how to make a REAL GPU.

Yeah, but that's exactly the point: It's NOT a GPU. It's a CPU, and it just happens to have a built-in GPU so if Mom buys a computer, she can play Farmville, and little Johnny can play some games, too.
Built-in graphics aren't for serious gamers, and they're no trying to be. There's no reason to pay for a GPU if the consumer doesn't want it.

I hate to break it to you, but Mom ain't buying an Ultrabook.

[BranndonFricks]

Wow, a lot of uppity people here totally missing the point of this processors graphics capabilities. I'm a snob too when it comes to graphics, if I can't max out a new game, it's time to go get the latest and most powerful GPU, but that isn't the point of this thing is it?

Ivy bridge is a modest gain as cpus go, but an exceptional gain when it comes to an integrated gpu. This will bring the prices down on ultrabooks, or at the very least allow that money to go towards a better screen or bigger battery.

Not everyone who buys a laptop wants to game on it, but everyone can agree that a cheaper and smoother experience is always welcome.

@harz Some people play farmville, and you know what, that's cool with me. I'm not a fan, but then I can't imagine how any game on the planet would escape being trite considering they all involve looking at a monitor and pressing buttons for a reward. Don't be so quick to put down the games others may enjoy, we all have our own personal skinner box after all.

[waldojim]

I just want to know this one thing:

Who the hell tests an entry level card at 1080P? I have an Nvidia Quadro 1000 that I can barely run at 1080P, and I am positive it DESTROYS that little Intel card. Actually, the numbers pretty well back that up... Nevertheless, the question stands - WHO DOES THIS? Most other sites have done reasonable testing and found 3 things.

ONE: The AMD INTEGRATED graphics on their APUs make minced meat out of Intel.
TWO: The IVY chip works out to be about 5% faster than SB. Normally amounting to 1 or 2FPS.
THREE: The most basic $60 add in card makes you question how PCWorld managed to convince their dedicated cards to perform so poorly. Because no one else has a problem smoking the integrated GPU in IB.

This is nothing against Intel, there are obvious improvements in Ivy, but in places that PCWorld dare not go. Namely because PCWorld doesn't go in-depth any more.

[Evildave]

Actually, an integrated GPU in the CPU saves a LOT of power, sharing the MMU (and perhaps some internal memory and miscellaneous tidbits) and not needing 'higher voltage' drivers to communicate with something off the chip.

The newer macbooks are supposed to use the integrated GPU in the CPU for normal desktop operations (major overkill in capabilities for that), and switch to a 'better' external GPU (if installed) to manage graphic intensive apps, like gaming. So most of the time, whatever external GPU is more or less 'off'.

Most likely some windoze portables will use the same trick. You know, for people who have something to do with their notebook besides play games.

This post has been edited by Evildave: 24 April 2012 - 10:25 PM

[waldojim]

Evildave, on 24 April 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Actually, an integrated GPU in the CPU saves a LOT of power, sharing the MMU (and perhaps some internal memory and miscellaneous tidbits) and not needing 'higher voltage' drivers to communicate with something off the chip.

The newer macbooks are supposed to use the integrated GPU in the CPU for normal desktop operations (major overkill in capabilities for that), and switch to a 'better' external GPU (if installed) to manage graphic intensive apps, like gaming. So most of the time, whatever external GPU is more or less 'off'.

Most likely some windoze portables will use the same trick. You know, for people who have something to do with their notebook besides play games.

Hmmm... will use? I think you need to do some research buddy. Every single notebook on the market with "Nvidia Optimus" already has that feature. AMD has a similar feature as well - but it doesn't have a cool name.

EDIT: and btw, this has been best put to use in gaming and workstation laptops. In case you didn't understand what people really use dedicated cards for.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 25 April 2012 - 06:25 AM

[Evildave]

Dedicated cards: 99+% gaming, <1% 'real work'. I'm quite aware.

And most of that <1% will sit at a proper desktop with big monitor(s) to do the 'real work', rather than a crappy 'desktop replacement' notebook machine.

[drissle]

harz, on 23 April 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

robotortoise, on 23 April 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

harz, on 23 April 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

Wow those benchmarks are terrible. Sure, it may be twice as fast as the last-gen onboard GPUs, but its still pretty much worthless. Arkham City is barely playable in DX10 mode. Wake me up when Intel actually learns how to make a REAL GPU.

Yeah, but that's exactly the point: It's NOT a GPU. It's a CPU, and it just happens to have a built-in GPU so if Mom buys a computer, she can play Farmville, and little Johnny can play some games, too.
Built-in graphics aren't for serious gamers, and they're no trying to be. There's no reason to pay for a GPU if the consumer doesn't want it.

Actually you're wrong, it IS a GPU. Intel sees their GPUs as competitors to a separate GPU. (Just look at the article title if you don't believe me.) Farmville, as far as I know, doesn't use any GPU whatsoever, unless it uses Flash's support for GPU acceleration. (I've never played such a trite game, myself.) If all a GPU is going to do is power Windows Aero, then the last-gen could accomplish that. The problem here is that Intel thinks that somehow their GPUs are going to replace a GPU card in things like ultrabooks which it spends millions (if not billions) of dollars pushing. But if a so-called ULTRAbook can't play games, it ISN'T very ultra. It's just a thin generic laptop that may/may not get good battery life. I cannot see what the point of touting "more power!" is unless that "more power!" translates into something usable. And here it clearly doesn't. 12fps in games is not usable. Little Johnny will probably be miserable playing his games on that kind of "speed."

It's a CPU with an inbuilt GPU which has lower power usage than it's predecessor. The chip is clearly a competitor to entry-level cards if it can run shogun at a higher FPS than a 6450? Obviously more powerful graphics can help with flash and silverlight applications that support GPU acceleration and windows aero will probably be more slick. I think you are really missing the point Harz. This chip is not meant to compete with a 7970 but with entry-level GPUs it can stand toe to toe and the power consumption is less than that of a discrete graphics card, which is a major positive if you are creating an ultrabook and want to extend battery life.

Looking forward to where the 3D transistor technology leads

[soren121]

harz, on 23 April 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

Wow those benchmarks are terrible. Sure, it may be twice as fast as the last-gen onboard GPUs, but its still pretty much worthless. Arkham City is barely playable in DX10 mode. Wake me up when Intel actually learns how to make a REAL GPU.

Keep in mind that they ran all these games at 1080p. You could probably get playable framerates at 720p. Ivy Bridge graphics, while they are a significant improvement in their category, are still just INTEGRATED GRAPHICS. nVidia and ATI would sue Intel's pants off if IVB could compete with their mid-range to high-end products.

This post has been edited by soren121: 29 April 2012 - 06:52 AM

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 24 April 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

Who the hell tests an entry level card at 1080P? I have an Nvidia Quadro 1000 that I can barely run at 1080P, and I am positive it DESTROYS that little Intel card. Actually, the numbers pretty well back that up... Nevertheless, the question stands - WHO DOES THIS? Most other sites have done reasonable testing and found 3 things.

I should mention that, according to benchmarks, the 6450 is about twice as fast as my geforce 210, yet that card could play most games I'd tried at 1024x768 with medium settings and get a good frame rate. I can definitely see IB graphics playing a game well at 1366x768 or so.