Intel Sandy Bridge Linux Graphics? It's A Challenge

[Shining Arcanine]

So in the end, we will have to wait for Q3/Q4 of 2011 in order to see a "proper" support of Sandy Bridge packed in our distribution.
Thankfully they have started the Linux support a year ago...

Gentoo Linux users probably do not have to wait that long. The source code is available now, so they just need to switch to instruct the package manager to install it, which might be somewhat involved, but it will become easier as more Gentoo Linux users obtain Sandy Bridge processors and write ebuilds for the newer software, assuming that they have not written them already.

[Prescience500]

Sandybridge is out, but no Gallium support or support expected in later drivers...makes me wonder. Does Intel actually plan to some day develop and optimize their open source drivers to the point of making them faster than what Gallium is capable of? What other reason would they have for not wanting to begin transitioning to Gallium?

[saski]

Currently Gallium sufferes from vaious bottlenecks hurting performance especially on weaker IGPs utilizing shared memory. For instance the mobile Radeon HD4250 does much less FPS in OpenGL games than with the classic mesa stack. With faster GPUs is seems to be the opposite in some cases. My best guess ist that Intel avoids Gallium at this time to maximize the performance of their IGPs under Linux - just my two cents

- saski

[mattst88]

To be clear, a hardware problem that has existed since Clarkdale is preventing accelerated playback of 23.97 FPS video without stuttering on Sandy Bridge's graphics?

[deanjo]

No..i think its just a lack of time before they fix that programming error

It is not a "programming error". It is a hardware limitation.

[deanjo]

To be clear, a hardware problem that has existed since Clarkdale is preventing accelerated playback of 23.97 FPS video without stuttering on Sandy Bridge's graphics?

Yes, that is the case. Intel has had a loooooooooooong time to fix that issue with their hardware.

[mattst88]

Yes, that is the case. Intel has had a loooooooooooong time to fix that issue with their hardware.

I don't guess there are any workarounds other than an extra frame every 40* seconds?

* (24 frames/sec - 23.976 frames/sec) * 40 sec = ~1 frame.

[deanjo]

I don't guess there are any workarounds other than an extra frame every 40* seconds?

* (24 frames/sec - 23.976 frames/sec) * 40 sec = ~1 frame.

Sure there is, get an nvidia.

[mattst88]

Indeed.

The difficulty of that workaround is that one has to spend more money on an otherwise unnecessary graphics card that would replace the otherwise OK integrated graphics provided on Sandy Bridge CPUs.

[deanjo]

Indeed.

The difficulty of that workaround is that one has to spend more money on an otherwise unnecessary graphics card that would replace the otherwise OK integrated graphics provided on Sandy Bridge CPUs.

A $30 dollar graphics card is a small price to pay.