How Intel Graphics On Linux Compare To Open-Source AMD/NVIDIA Drivers

[Swiftpaw]

If you only care about open source graphics, or want to see all open source graphics vs. each other, this is a useful comparison.

However, a real world comparison would be the fastest driver for each card vs. one another. Closed nVidia, open or closed AMD depending on card, and Intel (there is no closed).

Because it's just fucking hilarious seeing an Intel 4000 graphics chipset beating a nVidia 780 Ti, the fastest nVidia card.

[ua=42]

If I remember right, Micheal has the fastest ddr3 ram available. So that should be the highest speed that the integrated graphics should reach.

[Kayden]

Anyway, as an owner of an i5 Ivy Bridge laptop, I'm disappointed about how bad the support is. I have several games where they are nearly unplayable on it in linux but can run at nearly full detail and full frame rate in Windows. The same game will also play just fine using the open source radeon drivers, albeit not as smooth as it could be. I've also had rendering problems on intel, though many of those seem to have gone away with driver updates.

Sorry to hear that. Which games are you having trouble with? Perhaps I can take a look...

[caligula]

Caligula is right - IGP memory uses system memory, and unlike CPUs, the performance of a GPU is directly related to the frequency of the RAM. CPU tends to care more about latency than frequency, while GPUs care more about total bandwidth. Yes, cache does make a difference, but I never got the impression GPUs care that much about cache. I'm not aware of any discrete GPUs that have an L3 cache, and from what I do know, GPU caches tend to be really insignificant (like 1/4 the size of CPU caches). Since your system is as good as your worst hardware, if the RAM isn't fast enough, your cache won't keep up.

I would have to comment though, that intel graphics don't get as much of a performance boost as AMD graphics with faster RAM; a 20% improvement seems like a little too much for intel.

Some information about GPU pipelines

http://www.realworldtech.com/ivy-bridge-gpu/6/

http://www.nvidia.com/content/PDF/kepler/NVIDIA-Kepler-GK110-Architecture-Whitepaper.pdf

What I was referring to is
"One of the fundamental challenges for integrated graphics is memory bandwidth. High-end graphics cards have dedicated memory controllers with expensive GDDR5 and recently exceeded 250GB/s of bandwidth. Integrated graphics must share the memory controllers with the CPU and rely on much less expensive DDR3 that is limited to around 34GB/s."

The iGPU really has a limited memory BW compared to dedicated GPUs. iGPUs have lower memory BW than even the cheapest $20 passive cooled GPUs with 64-bit memory bus. If you can see the difference in memory bandwidth with dedicated GPUs, it should be obvious that iGPU's limited BW is a bottleneck. It might not make sense to buy fastest memory, but it does have some effect. It's probably still cheaper to just buy a mid range NVIDIA/AMD GPU.

But FWIW, I like the contributions from Intel on Linux. Intel is the most friendly GPU on the market for Linux users. Their developers rock. AMD on the other hand sucks bad. NVIDIA works, but is closed. Like this test shows, Intel has so good drivers that for Linux tasks, it beats most discrete graphics cards just because of the better drivers. So investing in a GPU makes sense in Windows world, but on Linux you might just use Intel and call it a day. Thanks guys @ Intel.

[mendieta]

It would have been nice ot include APUs, agreed.

Absolutely.

I also wonder how low you can limbo with AMD, meaning, would a cheap FX and a low end dedicated ATI graphics card give a comparable package than an i7 Haswell for less money? Part of the answer is in this article, but I dont have the info to put together all the pieces ...

[caligula]

Absolutely.

I also wonder how low you can limbo with AMD, meaning, would a cheap FX and a low end dedicated ATI graphics card give a comparable package than an i7 Haswell for less money? Part of the answer is in this article, but I dont have the info to put together all the pieces ...

YMMV, but IMO it's all about the drivers on Linux.

For example I'd use NVIDIA and CUDA any day over half assed OpenCL solution AMD offers. AMD/ATI made great hardware, but the drivers have always sucked bad. I've used NVIDIA since Geforce 256 and ATI since Radeon 8500 (around 1999/2000). Radeon 8500 was pretty much the last Radeon that worked on Linux. After that I've had random lockups with fglrx and the open drivers have been a joke till this day. I got into Intel GPU business when they started including iGPUs for the power users, first on the mobo, then on chip. I think they've worked fine for office use since X4500 (september 2008). The HD 3000/4000 chips are also ok. Not good enough for latest games, but works for casual gaming and non-graphics intensive development. Supports large screens (2560x1600) etc. Great stuff. I have a separate server for heavyweight lifting (Xeon / Xeon Phi / Geforce 780). For desktop, Intel makes optimum solutions when you want good cpu performance and decent non-locking graphics drivers that don't fail.

[mendieta]

For desktop, Intel makes optimum solutions when you want good cpu performance and decent non-locking graphics drivers that don't fail.

I agree. All my systems at home use Intel / Linux. The desktop is an i5-4670k, graphics work just wonderfully, even for my kids to steam-game via Crouton (sure, not everything is maxed out, but it all looks greate at 1080p, and in a few cases they need to lower to 740p).

My son's celeron Chromebook c710 works just fine as well for Steam (only a game or two are too slow to play, so he comes to the destkop). My wife's Dell xps13 "developer edition" is a thing of beauty, also haswell i5, lower clock (no games there, since it's her work rig). We have an old Dell Vosto that also came with an Intel celeron, happily running Lubuntu these days, but too old for these modern times.

I used to use AMD + Nvidia or ATI, but same thing as you, software issues got me tired.

Oh, and you were dead right about RAM effect in Haswell. I tested that when I overclocked my desktop, and OC'ing the ram from 1600 to 2200 gave a mostly linear speed up. I later backed up to 2000 for stability reasons (the CPU is also overclocled).

Cheers!

[mendieta]

Errata

Im my previous post I mentioned Crouton for the wrong machine. We use it on the Chromebook of course, not for the desktop.

[drSeehas]

Would be nice if Michael would compare Intel graphics to AMD APUs both on the open source stack. I assume most people thinking about going with an intel graphics would only consider an AMD APU as alternative, not discrete GPUs...

I agree.

[Artemis3]

Would be more interesting with more Intel samples

I can understand a few amd/nvidia, but here are way too many :3
In comparison, there is a lone Intel sample. Why not add the i5 or i3? How much lower do these go? How about other generations?

Intel is quite capable of surpassing AMD in the gpu area, especially integrated graphics.