Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by Maven1975, Jan 10, 2012.
Intel can't go graphics to save their lives. I swear, put their graphics engineers right there in a room with 5 starved lions, 3 gun totting mafiosi in a bloody rage and 2 gang bangers on a heroine deficiency, and they just won't deliver even if you tell them it's their only chance.
They have been literally promising "best in industry" and "the reference in graphics" since the bloody i740 was supposed to be a shinning example of all that was AGP when they introduced the damn port over 14 years ago today. It got trounced so bad by the PCI cards of the day (even the poorest of the poor) and it finally took nVidia and 3Dfx to bring decent AGP goodness to the masses of waiting gamers. Heck, even Matrox managed to pull off something better than the i740 POC.
I can't even believe people still put faith in Intel graphics today. Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, it doesn't matter. They only way Intel managed to make a comeback in the IGP world is by litigating nVidia and ATI away.
And Apple is falling for it, hook line and sinker, just for the sake of saving heat/battery (which is quite understandable, but frustrating nonetheless).
I wish apple could show us it's innovating/engineering muscle and find a way to put in a dedicated Gpu in the next MBA, something like lenovo's new think pad t430u and make it a standard feature.
The logic board is like a quarter the size of your average dedicated graphics card.
I'd argue this. Their graphics performance is more than enough for the large majority of society and especially the majority of the demographic the MBA is geared toward. I have no idea what you expect the IGP to accomplish that it hasn't already demonstrated. It feeds the display, it does external output, it can do high resolutions with ease, Sandy Bridge can do light to medium gaming, Ivy Bridge (as aptly shown) can do gaming even better. What else do you want it to do? Clean your house?
Should Intel go the way of AMD and buy out a company that specializes in graphics? Maybe so. But the fact remains, they're doing fairly well without one and are having record breaking quarters to boot. People are satisfied and I don't think the HD4000 will disappoint.
If you want to run X game at Y resolution, then buy a computer that is made to do that. Computers are tools and not every tool is right for the job. In my opinion, people shouldn't even be looking at Apple computers to game anyway. Custom rigs can get you much further for much cheaper.
You did read the link in the OP, right? You would not be making the same comment, then
Yes, the HD4000 can play video.... and that was all that was demonstrated during the "gaming demonstration"
They had to peddle back and use Mr. Blurrycam on a small screen demo, where you cannot observe the horrid quality of Intel "optimizations," for higher FPS.
Dedicated GPU as in GPU module on board and not on chip (as with the HD 4000). Your comparison between a desktop GPU and the logic board doesn't really make sense. Desktop GPU's have the necessity of spaced out components for proper heat dissipation due to higher power consumption (and processing power) and allowances of a bigger PCB so components need not be placed so close to one another (lesser PCB layers could also play a part)
Yeah I read it and I still stand by my comment. I saw the second video and it looked fine to me lol. I wouldn't have any complaints, but I wasn't up close, nor am I particularly a computer gamer, so my opinion is probably moot.
From the article:
But oh well, not everything can be good enough for someone, somewhere... that's just how technology is, I suppose.
I expect an IGP to perform at IGP levels for the current generation of IGPs in the industry. That means ship an IGP that's on par with nVidia's and AMD's offering. Not that hard ? Intel can't do it.
If you want to throw out th "good enough" card, then the majority of society doesn't need Thunderbolt, USB 3.0 is good enough, they don't need Core i7 processors, Core 2 Duo was good enough (and I'd even argue those were overpowered).
I've got news for you, what kind of demographic you think the MBA is geared towards has no bearing on Ivy Bridge. This is not a MBA exclusive. This is the only graphics we are getting for IGPs to pair with Intel stuff, all computers model included.
nVidia did IGPs just fine that could perform at current generation levels. My 320m equipped MBA can beat a Intel HD3000 equipped MBA with a much faster processor in graphics performance.
That is simply unacceptable from a player with Intel's expertise, especially if they are going to litigate the competition away. This is what is holding back the industry, it reeks of stagnation.
You are all aware the the 320M is literally a wash compared to the HD3000 IGP right? Its not like nVidia's offering was any better, seriously. You are arguing over ~5%.
Was any better ? Look at the release dates for both. And no, the 320M is not a wash, it performs better when you get pure GPU benchmarks, not CPU bound benchmarks like Anand was performing.
The fact Intel took an extra year to not even quite catch up to nVidia is quite telling of their talent.
I don't get why people are defensive of Intel's graphic strategy in light of all the plain facts out there showing them to be incompetent and to always have been so. Intel should just buy nVidia, gather all their current graphics engineers in an auditorium and force them to applaud as they introduce the nVidia engineers one by one before firing all the attending staff that couldn't produce a GPU to save themselves.
About +10 FPS increase (from 20-25 FPS with the HD3000) is a lot more than just 5% - even when comparing C2D models with the i5/i7. Who knows how the 320m would compare when used with a better CPU.
And I had the chance to play Skyrim on both the 2010 and 2011 model (bootcamp). It is a quite a difference.
And again, comparing the HD3000 to the 320M is quite disingenuous. The 320M is a year older! nVidia shipped the 5xx series at the same time Sandy Bridge came out. If Intel had butted out and let nVidia continue with chipset development, we could have had a 510M or 520M !
Integrated GPUs are always a tradeoff between speed on on side and price, power drain (and therefore battery life) on the other.
Who says intel couldn't make a faster GPU but it just wasn't worth it in terms of the additional power drain? Or it would cost too much for the OEMs of the business notebooks that these chips go into as well.
It's not as if IGPs are meant for heavy use. They're not made with performance in mind. Just the usual OS graphics acceleration and an occasional game or so.
If you're serious about graphics then no IGP will be good enough.
nVidia's CEO typically doesn't want to merge without getting the CEO position in the new company... (it's what stopped the proposed AMD/nVidia marridge a while before ATi was bought). Not only that, strict voting rules combined with MS legal protection (related to the original xbox and lic fees to this day on backwards compat) prevent a hostile takeover (though even without those two advantages, it's hard to takeover a modern tech corp by force).
At any rate, the 320m is much faster, even when limited heavily by the C2D CPU, faster than the HD3000. In Mac OSX, not so much, in Bootcamp Windows.... that's where the difference starts showing up and the ancient nVidia chip starts showing it's strength over the HD3000. Both are IGP linked to the system memory.
Anandtech did a follow up. Yes the demo was actually a clip being played in VLC. Intel claims that it didn't have enough time to setup a live demo so they did the video clip. Anandtech did get their hands on a Ivy bridge notebook and did play the same game in DX11. See below:
Ah yes, AGP and the i740. That was fourteen years ago?
Apple isn't falling for anything. They have never emphasized GPUs and the care more about battery life and heat, especially in the Airs.
nVidia says. Seriously, have you been under a rock ? Comparing nVidia's chipsets for the C2D and Intel's offering on the Core iX line-up, you can definately see Intel can't do graphics.
It's not like we're comparing Intel in a void here. There have been IGPs that weren't Intel branded before, there still are today. Why can AMD and nVidia produce these chips within the power constraints of Intel but with much better performance for a given generation ? Why does it always take Intel 1 or 2 generations to barely catch up to the old stuff ?
It's plain as day to me.
Except when they switched to nVidia IGPs in 2008 :
Low consumption and longer battery life is no excuse for Intel. The 2010 MBA had nVidia graphics and battery life was not shorter than the 2011 MBA using Intel's chip. For me it's plain simple: nVidia does it right, Intel not.
The article is misleading. If you read it it says Intel faked the presentation and it was not the case.
If you watch the video, you see the intel speaker being open about it being a demo running from a computer backstage. He was just making a joke about pretending to play the game in the beginning. Later he went ""Look, no hands"
It was just a presentation of what Ivy Bridge will offer.
Nvidia 320M seems to get the same FPS in OpenGL that Intel 3000HD does. This suggests that processing power is comparable. I suspect the differences in gaming performance is down to drivers and optimisations. For example some games run better on ATI GPUs and some run better on Nvidia ones. Then again, unoptimised drivers are not an excuse for Intel.
It is definitely poor that it's taken Intel 3000 HD to catch up and they are still not quite there.
Sorry, what I mean is, they might have had different priorities. They have to contend to the business market as well. They need to keep them at a low price, and their customers probably don't care much about GPU performance anyway. And the ones that do don't buy IGPs. A better IGP won't net them more sales because the customers that buy an IGP don't care.
I agree that intel's IGPs aren't as good as AMD's or nVidia's. I just meant to say they could make a much better if they wanted to, but IGPs are always a compromise and other considerations might have weighed in heavier here.
I don't think the real problem here is intel's IGPs. I think it's Apple using IGPs way too much in their products. The Pro 13" could easily use a decent GPU, other manufacturers do them in the same form factor and well below its price range.
The Airs are a bit of a stretch for a discrete GPU but they're focused on weight, not on performance. That should really be the territory of the pro.
So wait, nVidia delivers the same power constraints, at similar prices in volumes (Macs haven't jumped in price since moving from the 320M to the Intel stuff) but with much greater performance...
Tell me now, which priorities exactly are you talking about ?
The business market, getting a same cost nVidia chip that performs much better within the same power constraints for a given generation, isn't impacted at all.
Why do people feel the need to apologize for Intel ? The facts are plain as day : Intel can't do graphics. At all.
Intel isn't catching up. They're still as behind now as they were before. By definition, catching up means you'll eventually get there. After 14 or so years, I have no illusion of Intel ever "getting there".
And the 320M does as many FPS as the 3000HD in OpenGL what ? CPU bound benchmarks ? Of course, it has a big CPU to help it. GPU bound benchmarks ? Oups, no, not there. The 3000HD hasn't caught up to the 320M. You can't say something as generic as "FPS in OpenGL". There is no such thing as a static FPS count for OpenGL, it all depends on what API calls you're making, what you're rendering and what part of your pipeline is the bottleneck.