I used to absolutely hate intel's integrated solution ever since I used a lappy with the xtreme graphics 2, but now they are somewhat decent, especially with the introduction of the x3000. They started to use somewhat efficient unified shaders and actually could get decent fps in some games. The x4500 approaches the performance of an 8400m with only its 10 unified shaders vs 8400m's 16.. They will probably use their integrated graphics tech with this multi-core thing. So it seems, roughly speaking, that their unified shaders seem more efficient than nvidia's and amd/ati's solution(but this is just a quick thought, not comparing clock speeds, specific graphics intensive rendering bla hbalbahl) With the scaling, it may actually be competitive
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I used to absolutely hate intel's integrated solution ever since I used a lappy with the xtreme graphics 2, but now they are somewhat decent, especially with the introduction of the x3000. They started to use somewhat efficient unified shaders and actually could get decent fps in some games. The x4500 approaches the performance of an 8400m with only its 10 unified shaders vs 8400m's 16.. They will probably use their integrated graphics tech with this multi-core thing. So it seems, roughly speaking, that their unified shaders seem more efficient than nvidia's and amd/ati's solution(but this is just a quick thought, not comparing clock speeds, specific graphics intensive rendering bla hbalbahl) With the scaling, it may actually be competitive