dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
24
share rss forum feed


C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ
reply to ccallana

Re: Haswell vs Ivy Bridge Benchmarked Compared Clock-for-Clock

said by ccallana:

While I know nothing about the CPU performance, I think there are many other compelling attributes of Haswell over Ivy Bridge for several segments of the user base. Power consumption on certain SKUs is likely to be much better - making for thinner/lighter Ultrabooks. I'm pretty sure graphics performance will be increased as well - for those who care (most folks here put in add-in cards anyhow)

Haswell is not my program, so I can't speak definitively either way

Maybe now, Haswell's iGPU will actually run all the games on Anand's and Tom's Hardware's entry-level gaming tests. For a change...

Ooh, maybe by then AMD will make an 8-core Fusion with an integrated 7900 series GPU in it. But what am I saying...? One miracle at a time, right?
--
Because, f*ck Sony


trparky
Apple... YUM
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2

I seriously don't like integrated graphics. I've always gone with a discrete graphics card, even in notebooks. Leave graphics up to the people who know graphics and do it well, nVidia.


me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
reply to C0deZer0

I would buy an 8 core apu(assuming it was priced right) from amd in a heart beat. Decent graphics(assuming not gaming) and plenty of cores for good code compiling speed.


Chrno

join:2003-12-11
reply to trparky

Wow, that's a big laugh. Have you even tried running a game with the HD3000 or HD4000 processor graphics? Just a FYI, Intel owns more than 50% of the graphics market and the rest is split between nvidia and AMD. Leave graphics to the nvidia like how they did with the G84/G86/G92/G94 debacle. Lets not forget all those product renames. GTX 580M and GTX 570M one year while GTX 675M and GTX 670M the next. That's real innovation right there.

I can run Diablo 3 and WoW fine on my laptop which is running HD4000.



C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ

1 recommendation

reply to trparky

said by trparky:

I seriously don't like integrated graphics. I've always gone with a discrete graphics card, even in notebooks. Leave graphics up to the people who know graphics and do it well, nVidia.

I'm not fond of it either, but AMD managed to do something that reasonably works with their Fusion chips.

What I still don't like is how intel can call theirs actual graphics at all, and how they continue to purport that these are gamer-worthy chips, when independent review sites demonstrate rather clearly that even their current top-end iGPU can't even physically run a third of the games meant for an entry-level graphics evaluation. And then when you read the fine print, their tested settings to get playable framerates involved running something like vanilla WoW on low or minimal settings, when...
•vanilla WoW is nowhere near as graphically intensive as even the current build of WoW, and
•If they wanted to impress, they could try instead running it against something intentionally taxing, like RAGE or Metro 2033.

If anything, it comes off as a sign of contempt from intel toward those that try to defend PC gaming as a viable platform. It certainly doesn't help when someone who is new to the paradigm and doesn't know any better ends up buying one of these pre-builds with their integrated graphics and finds that it can barely run even a two-year old PC game, much less to the same level of graphical quality and speed that the current-gen console could. They then get turned off and instead of upgrading as necessary, decide to swear off altogether and go with the console and say "PC sucks for gaming" on forums like this one.
--
Because, f*ck Sony


C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ
reply to me1212

said by me1212:

I would buy an 8 core apu(assuming it was priced right) from amd in a heart beat. Decent graphics(assuming not gaming) and plenty of cores for good code compiling speed.

Well, for what it's worth, a recent trip to CompUSA here had an A10-5800K chip for $120. Four Cores and an integrated Radeon 7660 isn't too shabby.
--
Because, f*ck Sony


trparky
Apple... YUM
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2
reply to Chrno

Chrno See Profile, read what C0deZer0 See Profile said. He speaks truth!



trparky
Apple... YUM
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2

Intel integrated graphics may be enough to put some video on the screen and run Windows 7 Aero but that's about it.

When I say leave graphics up to the people who know graphics, I'm talking about those people who know how to make high-end graphics cards and chipsets that can run games such as Crysis at full quality settings. Don't even try running Crysis on an Intel integrated graphics chip! It's a futile effort!
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog | AOKP (The Android Open Kang Project)



C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ

As I said to someone in the store, "intel video for gaming is like being born HIV positive and your parents not having the decency to tell you."
--
Because, f*ck Sony


me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
reply to C0deZer0

The compusa here went out of business when microcenter came to town.

Besides I've got an x6 1045t in my server right now, I'd just like a decent 8 core to come out that had a usable gpu for other stuff.


Chrno

join:2003-12-11
reply to trparky

Crysis actually runs with the Intel integrated graphics and it's passable at low settings but what did you expect from a on-die graphics processing unit? You won't be able to run Crysis with full quality settings A10-5800K either.

I can run WoW with the Cata patch no problems on HD4000, screen res is 1600*900.

Too bad the whole market isn't made up of people who all want to run Crysis at full quality settings; otherwise you would right.