But neither is a GPU upgrade usually an option. You're stuck any way you slice it with mobile hardware.
Originally Posted by archibald
Sometimes i think it is no good engine when it always runs with every option enabled. Sure for benchmarks you have to force it, but real games like Serious Sam 3 and most likely others have got a database and disable features for slower cards. Of course when you would test DX10/OpenGL 3 or lower hardware then you can not use Tesselation but thats not all. Games have to run fast out of the box without setting everything to minimum manually - for Unigine benchmarks i would say they should at least provide an option to use best suited defaults, the results are a joke - nobody could use that engine for a game with that preset.
Looks like AMD GPU performance on Linux isn't that bad after all (a 6770 is equal to a 550Ti on Windows at least, it seems to be equal too on Linux, but the 6770 was about 20-30 euros cheaper than the 550Ti when it was released).
I'd still wait for Haswell then use an Intel IGP for my next "upgrade" though, since Intel has good, official open source drivers and integrated GPUs make less noise/use less power than dedicated ones.
In defense of dedicated GPUs, you can get a passively cooled 7750 that runs off PCI power for $100 that won't overheat under any workload at stock. Can't think of one that isn't 2 lanes wide. Though I can't argue that AMD has better FOSS drivers, because they don't. And I won't be surprised if Haswell has a good enough top end GPU that even thinking of a dedicated low end card isn't even worth it.
Originally Posted by Calinou
Last edited by zanny; 02-15-2013 at 12:17 AM.
Intel is shooting themselves to the foot with that though: the fastest haswell editions, those with the embedded 512-bit ram on die (Crystalwell), will be mobile only and priced to high heavens. (source: semiaccurate)
If those were available on the desktop, and cost < 200$, they'd kick dedicated gpus hard. But as is it's like Intel doesn't want to dominate in that area on purpose...
i'm seeing a lot of AMD favoritism...
Apart from the 680 only medium end or high-end(old) graphics cards were included.
When benchmarking and comparing GPU performances like this, one should be taking the most popular cards. the most popular nvidia card today is i assume the 660-Ti (at least before the 600 series it was 560-Ti) it's the best card for the most fair price basically. however underneath the 680 there are only cards that in comparison to the 680 are nothing but shitty. whereas with amd it's more stable and gradually better and better cards.
Still as always, nVidia will always be a step ahead of amd's gpus. and intel a step ahead of amd's cpus. amd is only there for being cheap. And without amd with intel and nvidia not with any real competition, prices wouldn't be this fair on processors and gpus today.