Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are Intel Iris Pro 6200 Graphics Fast Enough For Steam Linux Gaming?

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

  • Are Intel Iris Pro 6200 Graphics Fast Enough For Steam Linux Gaming?

    Phoronix: Are Intel Iris Pro 6200 Graphics Fast Enough For Steam Linux Gaming?

    While I'm still working on my full Intel Core i7 5775C Linux review of this socketed Broadwell processor with Iris Pro Graphics 6200, and still working through some strange issues, I do have some Steam Linux gaming figures to share tonight for those interested in how Intel's latest-generation Iris Graphics are performing with the open-source Mesa driver stack...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...x-Steam-Gaming

  • #2
    do ta?

    Comment


    • #3
      min? craft?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by phoronix View Post
        Phoronix: Are Intel Iris Pro 6200 Graphics Fast Enough For Steam Linux Gaming?

        While I'm still working on my full Intel Core i7 5775C Linux review of this socketed Broadwell processor with Iris Pro Graphics 6200, and still working through some strange issues, I do have some Steam Linux gaming figures to share tonight for those interested in how Intel's latest-generation Iris Graphics are performing with the open-source Mesa driver stack...

        http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...x-Steam-Gaming
        Michael, why is it that you never say what settings you run the games at? Wouldn't that make it very difficult to compare our systems against this data?

        Comment


        • #5
          Well he overrides $HOME in his Source engine profiles, not sure if that is the best solution. Also i think he misses the mesa override, not sure about the nvidia one, if that is set globally or not. These profiles never worked for me somehow - maybe because of a libc6 hack.

          Comment


          • #6
            you should try using normal resolutions! 800x600 and 1024x768 are not common resolutions. Use 1366x768 and 1600x900 instead of those 2 resolutions. Also you should add 2560x1440 too.
            Last edited by hajj_3; 14 July 2015, 04:59 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              i wonder about this post... im able to play Civilization V, TeamFortress 2, Dota 2, Half Life 2 on my core i3 laptop... of course i did some changes in graphics settings... by the way im not that hard core gamer ive played several minutes (~30 minutes) to test those games. i like casual indie puzzle games more and im really ok with my laptop for games ahhaah

              Comment


              • #8
                So... It's faster than R9 290 with OS drivers? Am I reading right?

                Is the CPU making the difference?

                Comment


                • #9
                  The CPU used for radeon tests was Intel as well, so it was definitely not the CPU But i have to admit, that this GPU and the next gen Skylake with L4 cache (not all Skylake chips will use that) shines in a good light - if stability issues are resolved. I would not buy the Broadwell chip however, seems to be better to wait a bit.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by hajj_3 View Post
                    you should try using normal resolutions! 800x600 and 1024x768 are not common resolutions. Use 1366x768 and 1600x900 instead of those 2 resolutions. Also you should add 2560x1440 too.
                    Stop being lame. Resolutions like 800x600 and 1024x768 are quite common for old PCs (as they scale reasonably on 4:3 LCDs and so on, so if your hardware can't render at full LCD resolution fast enough, these are acceptable option). And them, 1280x1024 LCDs are VERY common for cheap "office-grade" PCs, and it is quite unlikely weird resolutions like 1600x900 are more popular than that. In fact 1600x900 is quite uncommon as far as I know and 1366x768 is usually used on notebooks which are clearly not meant for gaming at all. So what is the point to make these benchmarks? And 2560x1440 (or x1600)? Hnm, do you honestly think Intel integrated crap can deal with it properly? It is quite demanding, after all.
                    Last edited by SystemCrasher; 14 July 2015, 07:38 AM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X