Originally posted by curaga
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
15-Way Open-Source Intel/AMD/NVIDIA GPU Comparison
Collapse
X
-
Arch people, eg means "for example". It does not mean Intel only works on Ubuntu.
It all depends on how different versions you use compared to those Intel has tested. Saying you run Arch is not useful info there, useful info would be "Intel says use these versions, but my X server is foo instead, and kernel bar instead".
Still, I'm far for the only one with these experiences; search this forum if you need more examples.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ericg View PostIf the only thing you care about is GPU performance...yes. But Intel smacks AMD around on CPU performance.
Intel: Great CPU performance, better power consumption perfectly workable and acceptable GPU performance (You wont play games on high, but low and maybe even medium should be okay), video decode support
AMD: Okayish CPU performance, worse power consumption (REALLY bad until you start running DPM kernels if your GPU is integrated), Good and acceptable GPU performance, no video decode support YET--You need kernel 3.10 and Mesa 9.2/10.0.
Best GPU performance of all.
Video decode acceleration supported by open source drivers -- aka "out of the box".
Personally I'm sticking to Intel Integrated graphics unless I really need a discrete card, and at that point I'll get an AMD discrete, not an AMD integrated.
Comment
-
The 6450 very likely has more than one DDR chip in there. How many pennies does it save to wire them in single channel vs dual?
If it were one mem chip, then the savings would be clear, but with multiple chips I don't see who thought it was a good idea to pinch pennies there.
Comment
-
Originally posted by curaga View PostThe 6450 very likely has more than one DDR chip in there. How many pennies does it save to wire them in single channel vs dual?
If it were one mem chip, then the savings would be clear, but with multiple chips I don't see who thought it was a good idea to pinch pennies there.Last edited by brent; 02 July 2013, 04:53 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by brent View PostYou also need additional logic in the memory controller and don't forget about the interconnects between die and packaging, which need a lot of space. And the PCB becomes more complex. It's a fact this GPU only has a 64 bit memory interface; it almost sounds like you are doubting that?
Comment
-
The other thing to remember is that integrated GPUs are getting more powerful every year -- you can't automatically assume that older dGPUs are more powerful than integrated GPUs any more. AFAIK the Intel HD 4600 has the same number of shader ALUs as the HD 6450 dGPU and a higher engine clock.
I *think* the ROPs on the HD 4600 are 4 pixels wide (and there are 2 ROPs) so 2x the 6450 there. Combine that with wider / faster memory as well (128-bit vs 64-bit) and it seems to me that the HD 4600 *should* be faster than the HD 6450.
The GPU in Trinity/Richland (>2x the ALU count, wider ROPs, 2 channel memory) is a better comparison.Last edited by bridgman; 02 July 2013, 10:36 PM.Test signature
Comment
Comment