Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

50% slower than AMD! Intel FAIL again with the HD4000 graphic hardware.

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

  • Drago
    replied
    Q, I am waiting for the AMD announcement today

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackStar
    replied
    Q does have a point in this thread. A CPU with a good integrated GPU is *much* better than dealing with Optimus crap.

    AMD's Fusion GPUs are good enough that you don't need a dedicated GPU unless you are a hardcore gamer. Intel's Sandy Bridge may be 10-30% faster than AMD's Llano clock for clock, but Llano's GPU is ~100-200% faster than SB's which makes for a much better all-around performer (that can run modern games in 'medium' settings).

    That's one part of the equation. The other is drivers, where Intel faces significant problems. One year later and Sandy Bridge still fails to vsync properly and still suffers from graphics corruption (esp. in Gnome Shell). The new Atoms are equipped with a DX10/GL3 PowerVR GPU - but guess what. Intel delayed them due to 'driver issues' and finally announced they will only support DX9 (no OpenGL!) and 32-bit Windows. No Linux, no 64-bit, just 32-bit Windows.

    And that's why you don't buy Intel GPUs: their drivers suck. At least with AMD you know you'll get decent support on Linux (with open-source drivers - fglrx sucks) and great support on Windows. No such guarantees with Intel.
    Last edited by BlackStar; 01-23-2012, 04:09 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    Sandybridge ex does exactly this.
    I suspect it is one of things that bottlenecks bulli.

    Second is huge intercache latencies and weak internal associativity.

    Third is weak overall power management. The CPU seems to do it right, most of times; but chipset recklessly burns all energy away.

    Fourth and most important absent logic: modify internal CPU scheduler to overload modules with tasks till they are 100% and only then go to next modules.
    That way part of modules will perform 20-100% and rest sleep at 0% till they are really needed.
    This needs internal CPU scheduler to break whatever OS scheduler core-thread association thinks is right and feeds and do it on its own instead - reassign each task manually.
    most of your point are only true on: WINDOWS;;;

    whatever it doesn?t matter in 2-3 months amd will bring a new quatchannel desktop socket and a octachannel server socket.

    the bulldozer successor will perform well on the new sockets with new chip-sets.

    Leave a comment:


  • crazycheese
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    i wait. in mid 2012 ->2013 amd will push out a quatchannel desktop socket this means i use my "PhenomII x4 B50" and next year i will buy a new system.
    Sandybridge ex does exactly this.
    I suspect it is one of things that bottlenecks bulli.

    Second is huge intercache latencies and weak internal associativity.

    Third is weak overall power management. The CPU seems to do it right, most of times; but chipset recklessly burns all energy away.

    Fourth and most important absent logic: modify internal CPU scheduler to overload modules with tasks till they are 100% and only then go to next modules.
    That way part of modules will perform 20-100% and rest sleep at 0% till they are really needed.
    This needs internal CPU scheduler to break whatever OS scheduler core-thread association thinks is right and feeds and do it on its own instead - reassign each task manually.
    Last edited by crazycheese; 01-22-2012, 10:08 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    Maybe you should ask AMD why you can not use a Bulldozer or whatever cpu without external gfx card when you want to use AMD-Vi. All supported chipsets like 890FX, all series 9 do not have onboard vga. And those funny FM1 boards use cpus which are not faster than the normal Athlons (just with much higher price) combined with a gfx core. Of course for laptops those cpus should be enough, at least when you use win to get all accelleration features
    i google it.. and i found nothing like amd-vi?

    do you mean IOMMU ?
    or AMD-V ?

    IOMMU is a chipset feature not a CPU feature, the 890FX supports it and all 900 chips support it.
    AMD-V is the visualisation feature all 45nm and better cpus support it.

    i read about problems with the IOMMU feature in the past and the source is some mainboard builder company disable it and only enable it in the high-priced version.

    but amd is not the source of the problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kano
    replied
    Maybe you should ask AMD why you can not use a Bulldozer or whatever cpu without external gfx card when you want to use AMD-Vi. All supported chipsets like 890FX, all series 9 do not have onboard vga. And those funny FM1 boards use cpus which are not faster than the normal Athlons (just with much higher price) combined with a gfx core. Of course for laptops those cpus should be enough, at least when you use win to get all accelleration features

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by scottishduck View Post
    Sounds like someone was trolled into buying bulldozer and needs to justify his awful purchase.
    i do not have buyed a bulldozer yet. and you can read in this forum my favor "bulldozer" i like is the Opteron 6204 with all "bulldozer like" features turned off.

    i wait. in mid 2012 ->2013 amd will push out a quatchannel desktop socket this means i use my "PhenomII x4 B50" and next year i will buy a new system.

    Leave a comment:


  • scottishduck
    replied
    Sounds like someone was trolled into buying bulldozer and needs to justify his awful purchase.

    Maybe it's worth waiting until Intel have actually finished the Ivy Bridge drivers before judging them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
    I don't understand the premise of the article: in 3D intensive applications, with DX 11, you can likely get "up-to" 50 percent extra performance. This is not that bad and not that good, is the same difference between pre-Sandy Bridge and Sandy Bridge. Even SB offers decent graphics, I use SB to my external 1920x1200 display, and is not slow for whatever Fedora/Gnome 3 is capable: non shuttering animations, and so on. There is a hardware that is 50% faster (like Ivy Bridge!?), I think is not noticeable. There is a hardware that is even extra 50% faster. So on graphics Intel is one generation after AMD, but on CPU is one in front. Also, Ivy comes with lower TDP, if the future will stand as Intel talks, and this would mean, that games will work basically the same (as a bit faster CPU will compensate the "strong" Bulldozer core on laptops).
    At the end I do hope to appear a general purpose laptop that can install Ubuntu (or any other popular distro like Fedora or openSuse) using ARM, and include nice hardware like NVidia Kal-El, I don't want the ultimate APU to look on Youtube, edit a document in LibreOffice or reading email. And when I'm working I will still work with higher end workstation which does not take advantage of the integrated graphics.
    ""up-to" 50 percent extra performance."

    means its the slow hd3000+50%

    this is just marketing speech first you put a product with 0 FPS and a product with 1FPS and then you make a commercial with an "unlimited" speed up.

    in absolute numbers its just slow.

    its so slow intel need to cheat with an video played in a VLC player;



    Intel just FAIL!
    Last edited by Qaridarium; 01-18-2012, 08:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ciplogic
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Proze...r-1407338.html

    Intel Core i7-3920XM HD4000=3DMark11 P615
    AMD A8 HD6620G=3DMark11 P1625

    In my point of view Intel is just Incompetent they just can't build fast GPU's

    AMD beat Intel with 1 year old stuff and I think Intel need another year or 2 to get the other 50% speed to.
    I don't understand the premise of the article: in 3D intensive applications, with DX 11, you can likely get "up-to" 50 percent extra performance. This is not that bad and not that good, is the same difference between pre-Sandy Bridge and Sandy Bridge. Even SB offers decent graphics, I use SB to my external 1920x1200 display, and is not slow for whatever Fedora/Gnome 3 is capable: non shuttering animations, and so on. There is a hardware that is 50% faster (like Ivy Bridge!?), I think is not noticeable. There is a hardware that is even extra 50% faster. So on graphics Intel is one generation after AMD, but on CPU is one in front. Also, Ivy comes with lower TDP, if the future will stand as Intel talks, and this would mean, that games will work basically the same (as a bit faster CPU will compensate the "strong" Bulldozer core on laptops).
    At the end I do hope to appear a general purpose laptop that can install Ubuntu (or any other popular distro like Fedora or openSuse) using ARM, and include nice hardware like NVidia Kal-El, I don't want the ultimate APU to look on Youtube, edit a document in LibreOffice or reading email. And when I'm working I will still work with higher end workstation which does not take advantage of the integrated graphics.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X