Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel HD 2000/2500/3000/4000 Linux OpenGL Comparison

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

  • phoronix
    started a topic Intel HD 2000/2500/3000/4000 Linux OpenGL Comparison

    Intel HD 2000/2500/3000/4000 Linux OpenGL Comparison

    Phoronix: Intel HD 2000/2500/3000/4000 Linux OpenGL Comparison

    For seeing where the current OpenGL driver performance stands for Intel's open-source Linux graphics driver on Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge processors, the very latest Linux kernel and Mesa development code were tested across four different processors to stress the HD 2000, HD 2500, HD 3000, and HD 4000 graphics capabilities atop Ubuntu.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18747

  • ObiWan
    replied
    i3225 rerun with DDR3 1333 instead of 1600 RAM (should have picked another name this time)

    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...UT-1305306UT95

    Leave a comment:


  • DanL
    replied
    Thank you. That's good news for people on a tight budget.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tgui
    replied
    Thank you.

    Impressive results from a dual core with HD 4000.

    Leave a comment:


  • erendorn
    replied
    3000 vs 4000

    It's interesting how the 4000 performs much more than the 3000 one (difference seems bigger than between 2000 and 2500)

    Leave a comment:


  • whitecat
    replied
    Originally posted by John123 View Post
    PS 2. Tell your girlfriend/wife to install graphic drivers on Linux
    Why I will do that?
    I even don't install graphic driver myself since there are already part of my distro (Linux+Xorg+Mesa).

    Linux is just Plug'n'Play

    Leave a comment:


  • ObiWan
    replied
    Originally posted by DanL View Post
    I don't fault Michael for not owning every Intel CPU in existence, or for comparing the GPU's in this manner (i.e. without limiting CPU speed), but I disagree that the benches are as conclusive as you infer. The benchmarks in this article only show the HD4000 paired with an i7-3770 (a quad-core, ~$300 chip). It would be really interesting to see how a Core i3-3225 (a dual-core, ~$140 chip with HD4000) fares on these benchmarks. I doubt many people are laying out $300 for an i7 and actually using the IGP for gaming...

    Maybe the openbenchmarking database has i3-3225 results..
    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...UT-1305306UT38

    Leave a comment:


  • Sonadow
    replied
    Originally posted by DanL View Post
    I stopped reading right there, and no, I don't have ADD. I do, however, have a strong aversion to bullshit...
    That guy has been using the word 'ADD' in 2 of his 3 posts.

    What is ADD? I'm guessing Attention Deficiency Disorder?

    Leave a comment:


  • DanL
    replied
    Intel responses to Nvidia (and thus AMD) by "attaching" the graphics to the CPU, which basically means Nvidia (and AMD) have to reverse engineer Intel graphics and the drivers (on any OS), which is illegal. That means Nvidia or AMD are forbidden to provide proper drivers for their own product, thus making them not to perform at full capabilites and always being crappy. All pictures or videos have to go through Intel CPU/GPU in the end.
    I stopped reading right there, and no, I don't have ADD. I do, however, have a strong aversion to bullshit...

    Leave a comment:


  • John123
    replied
    It "ain't" gonna happen

    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Intel HD 2000/2500/3000/4000 Linux OpenGL Comparison

    For seeing where the current OpenGL driver performance stands for Intel's open-source Linux graphics driver on Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge processors, the very latest Linux kernel and Mesa development code were tested across four different processors to stress the HD 2000, HD 2500, HD 3000, and HD 4000 graphics capabilities atop Ubuntu.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18747


    Hi there,

    Letter not for ADD folks.

    I've been tracking what some major graphics companies have been doing for some time now and the state is appalling, not only for any Linux kernel based distribution, but for everyone.

    First the Nvidia goes on war with that Intel graphics based on P III (amazing performance),that requires SLI by refusing the patents or license, so Intel won't compete with Nvidia in corporate segement. Intel responses to Nvidia (and thus AMD) by "attaching" the graphics to the CPU, which basically means Nvidia (and AMD) have to reverse engineer Intel graphics and the drivers (on any OS), which is illegal. That means Nvidia or AMD are forbidden to provide proper drivers for their own product, thus making them not to perform at full capabilites and always being crappy. All pictures or videos have to go through Intel CPU/GPU in the end.

    That means that the Nvidia or AMD graphics are at best of a second sort. Moreover it questions the legality of their dirvers, because for example on laptops with Windows- AMD provides unassigned Intel graphics drivers inside subfolder of subfolder of their own driver. If they don't AMDs graphic will not work at all. Not only that- they cannot do it legally so they don't offer drivers for laptops on their support website. They make the vendors like HP and DELL to do that, thus making the drivers extreme old and buggy for the laptops these vendors sell. And HP or DELL are absolutely in no interest or position to change it. Why would they? The product is out and sold. The money is in the bank account. Who cares!

    Moreover. It got to the point that even Windows users know now what graphic power management and sync to vblank is. It was unheard of a few years back.

    Another thing is that Nvidia is not intersted in doing the drivers for any platform. First its the same stroy as with AMD: making drivers is a cost. Once GPU is out, nobody cares. Drivers do not generate sales. Only framerates and demos on computer shows/fairs. But reality is different. And they get the money elsewhere.

    For example Nivia recently build a complete new system from scratch that is selling very well. It functions as a game streaming service so people can play games on thin clients and everything is rendered on that system. If they make tons of money by selling content (royalties, like 3 dollars of every game title that is rendered on that machines) they will make amazing money. So why would they need any drivers for some shitty laptops? Why would they hire bunch of programmers, when they hire two and they make the drivers for their system. The system that makes the money, not the laptops that don't. They may be selling GPUs to vendors, yes- that makes money, but the drivers don't. And once the hardware is out it does not generate any revenue stream. So why generate additional post sale cost? No f... way.


    So will Linux based distros receive working graphic drvers? Ever?. No! Who cares about sync to vblank for Linux (and now even for Windows!!!). Keep dreaming about waylands, mirrs or desktop acceleration. It ain't gonna happen. Never. Linux is a post sale cost. There has never been a proper support, there always was video and desktop tearing for nvidia, complete lack of working drivers for AMD and shit for Intel working 3 times slower than on Windows and without OpenCL, wich renders programms like GIMP 2.8.x unstartable on Intel machines. Pair it with non working AMD and you're out. Not to mention VAAPIs, NVDPAUs and other stuff like renering videos on GPU. Keep dreaming.


    PS. And now Linux got that amazing gift from Intel, called UEFI and awesome present from Microsoft called Banned Boot without USB. Hoorraaay!

    PS 2. Tell your girlfriend/wife to install graphic drivers on Linux

    PS. 3. Installing graphic drivers on Linux will definitely get you laid )

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X