Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel HD 2500 Ivy Bridge Graphics On Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Intel HD 2500 Ivy Bridge Graphics On Linux

    Phoronix: Intel HD 2500 Ivy Bridge Graphics On Linux

    Since the launch of Intel's Ivy Bridge processors earlier this year there have been many benchmarks of the Intel Core i7 3770K with its integrated HD 4000 graphics and then more recently have been Linux testing of the Intel Core i7 3517UE from the CompuLab Intense-PC and Intel Core i7-3615QM as found on the Apple Retina MacBook Pro. The newest Intel Ivy Bridge chip to play with at Phoronix is the Intel Core i5 3470, which bears an Intel HD 2500 graphics core. In this article are benchmarks of the Intel HD 2500 Ivy Bridge graphics with the open-source Intel Linux graphics driver stack.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17783

  • #2
    Oh hey, that's the processor I just recently bought! Interesting comparison there. Though it would be nice if there was also something from the AMD and NVIDIA line-ups to compare the performance to. And a minimum FPS value would be good to know, too, as you can have 60 FPS average with stuttering and the game won't be playable...

    That said, unfortunately for me, I can't use the integrated graphics right now in openSUSE 12.2 RC2 as it uses slightly older Intel drivers, and those cause quite a bit of screen corruption... Which makes me wonder if it's possible to switch between GPUs. It's not the usual laptop GPU switching, after all, since there are two separate DVI connections here, instead of one like in laptops. At the moment, if I use one port at startup and then connect to the other, what I get is a black screen (but the monitor says that it's receiving data correctly)...

    Also, on a related note, the r600g developers did an awesome job, as now with a Radeon HD4890 I get 52 FPS in Unreal Tournament 2004 when everything is set to high quality except for texture quality (that is set to "low", which is 4/9, and it makes a lot of difference in FPS). If this goes on, I won't even need fglrx to begin with.

    Comment


    • #3
      And the outcome is that Intel doubled their GPU performance from Sandy to Ivy. Doubled!

      In this day and age, that's damn commendable.

      Comment


      • #4
        shouldn't the i3's with hd3000 gfx be here by now?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by curaga View Post
          And the outcome is that Intel doubled their GPU performance from Sandy to Ivy. Doubled!

          In this day and age, that's damn commendable.
          Well considering the architectural overhaul intel did to IB and the dedication of GPU drivers, I don't find the results very surprising. That being said, in an intel-only perspective, this is a commendable accomplishment. However, when you compare to other companies, there is nothing commendable about this. The only pride intel should recieve is IB being the product that makes intel competitive against AMD and nvidia. Now if the Trinity APUs double their GPU performance, that would be commendable, since they're already really good. But, if they doubled their CPU performance, that isn't so commendable (for the same reason as the intel GPU situation).

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
            Oh hey, that's the processor I just recently bought! Interesting comparison there. Though it would be nice if there was also something from the AMD and NVIDIA line-ups to compare the performance to.
            I'm running quadcore athlon II x4 with 260 gtx sp 216. Xonotic with nvidia binary on ultra settings shows 90-130 fps, very very rarely slowing to 60 on water scenes.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
              Also, on a related note, the r600g developers did an awesome job, as now with a Radeon HD4890 I get 52 FPS in Unreal Tournament 2004 when everything is set to high quality except for texture quality (that is set to "low", which is 4/9, and it makes a lot of difference in FPS). If this goes on, I won't even need fglrx to begin with.
              What screen resolution? That can also make a considerable difference.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
                What screen resolution? That can also make a considerable difference.
                1602x1080. It's kind of a crazy resolution, I know, but the game was designed to be played on a 4:3 monitor, and this is the closest I can set to without the monitor suddenly deciding to scale the whole screen down.

                Comment


                • #9
                  You can't tweak the fov in UT2004?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by curaga View Post
                    You can't tweak the fov in UT2004?
                    The FOV is not a problem, it's the HUD that you can't tweak. It gets stretched out. Theoretically it should be possible to tweak that as well, but apparently the INI entries that let you do that are broken in a single monitor setup.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by curaga View Post
                      You can't tweak the fov in UT2004?
                      Yes, you can

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X