It Looks Like Intel Could Begin Pushing Graphics Tech More Seriously

[dkasak]

for office machines, Intel graphics is fine and has been for years now. I would be more than happy with a high end CPU with mid range graphics for my workstation (*looks at AMD*)!

They've never been fine for me, though I run a Linux desktop. Have you used their Linux drivers? <shudder>

[Zan Lynx]

I use a Dell m3800 laptop with Intel graphics and regularly run the internal 4K display and an external 4K at the same time, with gnome-shell doing composited graphics. It works really well for software development. And when not plugged in the battery life is a good 4 - 5 hours while using the iGPU and the laptop's display.

There's an Nvidia chip also but I rarely use it. It doesn't improve the desktop experience at all. And if I'm not on AC power, the battery life drops to about 1 hour while using the Nvidia.

So in laptops, one of the largest markets for Intel chips, integrated graphics are a very good thing.

[RussianNeuroMancer]

I agree Intel should and could better support the old platforms, but it's also true that tablet manufacturers have pretty much already abandoned Cherry Trail. If you want to buy one, you need to browse Aliexpress or Taobao. They've already stopped selling them in the developed world.

My CherryTrail tablet is Dell 5855, which is, you know, hardly AliExpress/Taobao thing. It was unusable before Linux 4.12 because display wasn't working. Also there is plenty of laptops with BayTrail/CherryTrail Atom's, brand new, on the shelves around the world. On some of this laptops display wasn't working before Linux 4.11, for example on this one (can last for up to seven-ten hours on one charge under Linux, but there is no UCM for ES8316 so no audio).

By the way, I just noticed that I put wrong link on second page:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100310 - this one was resolved.
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101711 - this is something new, and seems like it's reproducible only on HD/2GB model (can't reproduce on FHD/4GB model that I got recently).

Maybe somebody from Intel could tell why both Bay and Cherry Trail failed so much? All the issues with suspend and power states. All the iGPU lockups. Some of the infrastructure just wasn't there.

Intel paid to write gmin-kernel patches (which have working suspend, audio, camera drivers, etc.) but didn't paid to upstream all of them (judging by Intel Atom ISP 2400/2401 driver in staging maybe gmin-kernel is just unupstreamable mess).

Still I have to admit Intel has worked on these issues and at least kernel 4.12 seems pretty decent. Intel is still supporting them even if the higher level vendors have given up all support by now.

It's not Intel, it's Hans de Goede, who fixing BayTrail/CherryTrail in his own free time, for a year. Most of his patches get accepted recently, but still not all.

[duby229]

There's no single PC market with a homogeneous audience. Corporations buy systems for normal office use or as travel companions. In that case, graphics perf might not be among top three priorities. The most important are weight, battery life, CPU performance, screen quality, max amount of memory, disk space, and SSD throughput. They make a significant portion of the sales. They also make periodic updates, which is important for the business.

And that's exactly why Intel needs to be manly and step up to the plate and set minimum GPU performances that are adequate to play gmaes of that time. The increased production will pay for it. (At 75% market share it's billions of chips, the additional cost would be literally pennies each.)

[boxie]

They've never been fine for me, though I run a Linux desktop. Have you used their Linux drivers? <shudder>

only been using the AMD drivers for the last couple of years on my R9 380 at home, IMHO it's been a much better experience than the nouveau or nvidia drivers I use on my work pc (quadro 440)

[Stankami]

AMD APUs have been a poor choice for gaming, because it's a poor choice to go with a lackluster CPU with performance of the Athlon II X4 and Q6600 days. Worse, they sold the A10-5800K, A10-6800K, A8-6600K, A6-6400K etc. for a long time, even after they deprecated the GPU drivers for Radeon HD 5000/6000 series ; and the GCN 1.2 APUs (Carrizo, Bristol Ridge) are OEM-only.
A8-7600 is the only good one, if you were in the right timing that you bought it (yet still slower than an i7-920 CPU I think)

So for gaming I'd rather go with an i3 7100, i5 6600 etc. and use the integrated graphics than with an APU although indeed the AMD Raven will pretty much fix everything having both an i7-level CPU and latest graphics.

I game on a PC with an A10-5800B which has a 7660D IGP and I get around 70fps on Dota 2 Low at 1080p and 100fps on CSGO low at 720p. Yeah I know it may sound horrible but I have no complaints man, the IGP is amazing and the CPU has rock solid perfomance albeit it's no 7700k it gets the job done considering it's age.

[starshipeleven]

You're definitely wrong again. When a chip comes off the line it's already paid for. Mass production is the whole fucking point.

No, when something comes off the assembly line no goddamn thing is paid off.

It's when you sell the finished products to customers that something is paid off. And you need to pay off not just the fab making the chip, but also the R&D engineers and everyone else in the company that is involved in getting the chips off the fab and into the consumer hands (marketing), plus administrative and technician people.

You keep ignoring that making the chips is just ONE of the steps in the process, and that the costs of the product are NOT just the material and labor cost of the fab.

And you keep insisting that people don't game but your wrong, they do! This is the whole fucking reason the PC gaming market collapsed a decade ago, and people still have this completely retarded mindstate even today.

I've not seen this PC gaming collapse you're talking about, and you are still posting random bullshit even today.

[starshipeleven]

And that's exactly why Intel needs to be manly and step up to the plate and set minimum GPU performances that are adequate to play gmaes of that time. The increased production will pay for it. (At 75% market share it's billions of chips, the additional cost would be literally pennies each.)

You have no fucking idea of what you are talking about, they can't make a better iGPU without sacrificing other aspects of the chip, or making it significantly more expensive.

Mass production isn't a silver bullet, you can't just pull it out to handwave away any issue.

[duby229]

No, when something comes off the assembly line no goddamn thing is paid off.

It's when you sell the finished products to customers that something is paid off. And you need to pay off not just the fab making the chip, but also the R&D engineers and everyone else in the company that is involved in getting the chips off the fab and into the consumer hands (marketing), plus administrative and technician people.

You keep ignoring that making the chips is just ONE of the steps in the process, and that the costs of the product are NOT just the material and labor cost of the fab.

I've not seen this PC gaming collapse you're talking about, and you are still posting random bullshit even today.

You do realize that when a bin of chips is paid for, it's long before it ever got made? Right? There is not a single chip Intel produces that a consumer bought from them, You are not Intel's customer dumbass!

[duby229]

You have no fucking idea of what you are talking about, they can't make a better iGPU without sacrificing other aspects of the chip, or making it significantly more expensive.

Mass production isn't a silver bullet, you can't just pull it out to handwave away any issue.

You talk about magic bullets and then try to blame that on me? Jackass. I know for damn sure that Intel's GPU are -not- adequate right now and they sure as fuck do have the expertise and the ability to make them so. And their market share is so big, it wouldn't cost nothing but a few pennies each.