Intel brings DirectX 10 to integrated graphics, NVIDIA says not so fast
By Donald Melanson 
posted May 6th 2008 5:16PM
posted May 6th 2008 5:16PM
Intel has been boasting of DirectX 10 support for its various integrated graphics options for some time now, but it's only just recently gotten around to actually releasing a Vista driver that brings its GM965 and G35 Express chipsets up to speed. Of course, NVIDIA just couldn't help itself from getting a few (more) digs in at Intel's expense, and it's now kindly provided a few benchmarks to show just how badly Intel's integrated DirectX 10 solution stacks up against the bleeding-edge DirectX 10-ready games it now ostensibly supports. They couldn't find a single game that was able to crank out more than 5 fps, even at a lowly 1280 x 1024 resolution and with the usual graphics intensive settings turned off. Then again, 4.4 fps in Crysis is pretty much par for the course.Read - Crave, "Intel updates graphics with multimedia capabilities"
Read - Hardware Secrets, "Are Intel chipsets really capable of running DirectX 10 games?"
This is just a total shock to me....Intel , failing at gaming graphics. wow.
Really?
I thought this DX10 and Vista capability would rock the world for sure.
Yeah, seriously, what was NVIDIA thinking? This would be like a politician running a smear campaign against your crazy uncle Earl.
Sure, Earl can dress himself in the morning, but he always forgets where the bedroom door is.
Nothing like a bit of slagging off the opponent to let them know that you're moving in on their territory
Nothing like a bit of slagging off the opponent to let them know that you're moving in on their territory
Triple post =( Sorry about your inbox
Ya, go Nvidia! If you really want to shut Intel up please release a CPU that performs better...
AMEN!
You said it sister. Now join me in sweet sweet gospel.
Combija My Lord, Combija!
@ Doug: That spelling is so rare and so bad, it's the first Google result for "combija" right now.
haha this article is the first search result...
Well here is a Nvidia CPU for your perusal..
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-enters-cpu-market,4803.html
(I do know its an ARM processor, but its a start..)
My new name is Combija.
I now have all the glory from this intervention of Combija! WeeeE!
"Did you mean: colombia"
LOL
@Doug
*shame
Quite literally, an epic fail there Doug. Nice.
But come on, when the fail is that epic, is it really a fail? :)
In the main while I'll keep on gaming on my DirectX 10 capable rig with 8800 GTX, while watching these people try to out do each other.
I have a hummer
"I've got a reeeeally big penis!"
I don't
:(
Waiit, we are talking about e-penises here right?
When will Intel learn, you can't beat NVIDIA at their own game.
It's painfully obvious that they're not trying.....yet.
actually AMD still has the best integrated graphics
The intel vista drivers may actually work though...
Good point.
Heh, intel does a better job with their /windows/ drivers too? Man.
I'm getting a machine soon that will never have been touched by windows, but the nvidia option is only 2.8 times the power of the intel one..
If nVidia doesn't go open soon, it may just be that it's worth it to go with the less powerful GPU and get the awesome driver support.
I definitely haven't had any issues with nVidia Vista drivers for my 8800 GTX...
This board isn't meant for gaming. It's perfect for Linux (as i just bought one) and has all open source drivers. It's perfect for HD video. If your not a gamer or CAD designer .. you really don't care about 3D frame rates. I don't think Nvidia is going to win this one as they don't seem to get it. If you don't need super 3D power .. you don't need Nvidia.
If you don't need super 3D power, why would you get a DX10 motherboard?
DirectX is just a 3D API. It can be used for more then just video games. It can be taken advantage by any application that are not as intensive and will be fast.. examples being mapping applications & photo applications.
I need it mainly need it for the 3D desktop features and HD video The platform has all open source drivers (which Nvidia doesn't understand that word) under Linux. It's nice and fast..definitely sets it apart from older 945 integrated card. So I'm mainly interested in OpenGL portion at the moment. But using it under Vista would give me the ability to run all the eye candy too.
I used to play games, but I stared just playing them on consoles. Actually the rig that I'm replacing this has an Geforce 6600 with dual DVI. But once I stopped playing games on my machine and started doing work and what not, I need a machine that had "good" 3D performance for Desktop stuff, has DVI that can handle 1920x1200 (for my 24" Samsung Monitor), and the ability to handle HD video without issue, and of course had all open source drivers under Linux. This fills the bill perfectly.
Not to mention boards with said chipsets are cheap as "chips" -- about $50-60 USD maximum. Considering Intel's recent (and consistent) price cuts you can build yourself a fast but importantly cheap new system. 4GB of RAM is barely what, $60-80 USD? What a time we live in!
Correcting more misinformation - linux drivers for my 8800 GTX work fine...
I never said they didn't work. But the accelerated drivers are NOT open source and the fact is they do not support newer features fully... example being xrandr. Another fact is that the cost differential is huge been the two.
I was using my 6600GT with the proprietary drivers. But these are a pain in the rear to do deal with. Doesn't help with working out of the box either. Also the fact that Nvidia has stopped supporting some cards (and will probably target 6600GT soon as a non supported card .. going to legacy driver .. which is old an outdated). If it was open source this wouldn't happen.
Please read before trying to make smart remarks
and DX10 is only for gaming because?!?
Everyone assumes it has to be for playing games, there are other advantages as well. Just like when Intel brought out DX9 integrated graphics...
Hey, why you all knocking Intel? They make a DX10 capable/ready integrated graphics chip and you're all complaining? These DX10 capable/ready chips will be integrated in almost all the PC's and Laptops in the high street. They are doing little Johnny and his cash strapped parents a favour in this pressing economic environment, now they can finally tell little Johnny that the sticker on the PC is letting them know that this baby is capable/ready to rock his world with DX10 glory. So don't knock Intel, I am sure they wouldn't fool the honest consumer. They are our friend.
Give it time NVIDIA, Give it time, Intel will be kicking down your door one day.
Absolutely. I give it until 2010.
nvidia is just getting sad these days.
yeah but this is really a turning point for a lot of this stuff and in a few more years with the newer chipsets that coming up they will be pushing the graphics card further and further out the door. you cant tell me I would need a graphics card if I had 2 8 core cpu's in this work station case.
you would need a graphics card to do anything other than edit word documents or play doom, even if you had dual 8 core processors.
Graphics cards are massively paralell processors, with well over a hundred cores (and by the time you have dual 8 core processors, graphics cards will have thousands of cores) To display 3d graphics, there are literally thousands of times each second where you have to multiply 4x4 matrices. A regular CPU has to do each part of the matrix multiplication separately, meaning it takes many clock cycles to perform one multiplication. Graphics cards have "hardware acceleration", meaning they are designed with matrix multiplication in mind, and they can perform a full 4x4 matrix multiplication in one clock cycle, something no CPU can achieve. Graphics cards have many of these specially designed circuits, allowing them to show decent looking 3d models.
Take 3dmark 06 for example. My 8800gt gets about 25fps in crysis with everything maxed. My overclocked quad core @ 3.6ghz only gets about 3 - 5 fps in the 3dmark 06 processor test. And that test is trivial compared to crysis.
I don't know why so many people seem to be against specialization. I want my processor to be as good as possible at doing what it does, while leaving the graphics to something that is currently much better (and always will be) suited to the task.
Damnit, meant "thousands of times PER FRAME", not per second, and it's probably more like tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands.....
I'll bet Intel will sneak something like that into Nehalem+1...
By the way, it seems the Cell Broadband Engine has half decent OpenGL performance, but it's all very experimental.
The first OS release that will really take advantage of that will be *buntu 8.04.1
Here's Ethana talking about the Cell in an almost completely unrelated article again. Guess what? The Cell is a CPU, not a GPU, and because of their differing needs it will never replace the modern graphics card (and the only way it'll replace ancient graphics cards is through heavily taxing emulation). Just about the only thing the Cell is good for is running a server or a render farm. Of course, I've pointed this out to him several times, but he just won't learn.
Saying that an Intel integrated chip supports DirectX 10 is a lie since only games use DX10 and it runs like a slideshow.
cough*Vista Capable*cough