Can Intel's 82945G graphics chipset do 1080p (just talking 2D)?

[mikeymikec]

I haven't managed to find what I would consider to be a definitive answer on this one. The Intel site reckons it depends on the board that the chip is used in. I checked the video RAM in the advanced graphics properties on Vista, and it reckoned 64MB. In the BIOS it wasn't altogether clear what it could do, but it was on the maximum setting already and from what I read, it suggested it could do 128MB if required.

Vista OS. If I have any trouble with it I'll try updating the drivers.

Otherwise, it's a HP slimline desktop, product code s3110.uk.

Though if anyone knows of a way (apart from googling and hoping to find a trustworthy source) of finding out the maximum resolution a graphics card/chipset will do, I'd like to know.

 

[Red Hawk]

82945G? That's like, Pentium 4 era integrated graphics. That's the chip that I had which couldn't even play Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic properly and prompted me to get my dad to buy a Geforce 7300 GT. That's from before 1080p monitors were even close to appearing on the market.

So I'm going to go with "no". Even if the chipset supports a 1080p aspect ratio (which I doubt), basic web browsing and page viewing with a 82945G will choke at 1080p, and the fact that it's Vista makes it even worse (it's a more demanding OS). And you can kiss any chance of playing back HD video (even 720p) goodbye.

Seriously, that is such old tech I'm surprised it's even for sale somewhere.

 

[ViRGE]

I've seen 945G-equipped systems driving 1080p displays before (though I don't know how much RAM was mapped to VRAM) so I'd say the answer is yes.

 

[fuzzymath10]

High resolution 2D is not exactly a new development. 1080p should be doable, although I remember my GMA 3100 (broadly similar vintage) couldn't natively output 1600x900 over VGA (despite allegedly supporting up to 2048x1536) so need to check that it has a DVI output (which handled it fine).

If your CPU is up to the task, it should probably software decode 1080p video easily. A ~2.4GHz Core 2 Duo would do it (or slower depending on the encoding scheme).

 

[sabot00]

High resolution 2D is not exactly a new development. 1080p should be doable, although I remember my GMA 3100 (broadly similar vintage) couldn't natively output 1600x900 over VGA (despite allegedly supporting up to 2048x1536) so need to check that it has a DVI output (which handled it fine).

If your CPU is up to the task, it should probably software decode 1080p video easily. A ~2.4GHz Core 2 Duo would do it (or slower depending on the encoding scheme).

I don't know, the GMA 3100 is quite newer than the 82945G (mid Core 2 era).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA

I doubt the 82945G supports 1080p resolution.

 

[mikeymikec]

82945G? That's like, Pentium 4 era integrated graphics.

I think you're thinking of 82845G.

I just googled for 82945G and some thread popped up on tomshardware's forums about a guy with a Core 2 Duo and this graphics chip. Since the machine in question was also built with Vista, I'm quite sure it's not a P4

The general opinion seems to be about 50/50, which was my line of thinking as well. I've been pleasantly surprised by Intel integrated graphics implementations in the past, a P4-era managing 1680x1050 IIRC, and yet at other times one is stuck with 1280x1024.

 

[ButtMagician]

I've seen a 1920x1080 monitor work with a GeForce 2 MX card (Not even sure if 64 MB or 32 MB version). Isn't 82945G newer than that?

 

[mikeymikec]

I've seen a 1920x1080 monitor work with a GeForce 2 MX card (Not even sure if 64 MB or 32 MB version). Isn't 82945G newer than that?

5 years younger I'd say (or more), however most graphics cards could for a long time handle about twice the resolution that onboard graphics chipsets could do. I think Vista and mainstream wide-screen monitors forced chipset manufacturers to up their game a bit though (or bow out in the case of SiS, thank god). I suppose RAM prices had something to do with it as well.

 

[tynopik]

I've seen 1920 x 1080 (sorta) work with a Matrox Millennium II PCI card

 

[dave_the_nerd]

For 2D it'll work, provided the other bits (ramdacs and doodads and such as) will also support the higher resolution.

 

[2is]

I think weather it supports a 16:9 aspect ratio is a bigger factor than the resolution. I'm willing to bet if it can do 16:9 it can do 1080p

 

[tcsenter]

What do you mean, "do 1080p"? On Windows, it depends on the Intel VBIOS ROM. But there is a difference between doing 1080p and doing it well.

 

[mikeymikec]

What do you mean, "do 1080p"? On Windows, it depends on the Intel VBIOS ROM. But there is a difference between doing 1080p and doing it well.

Display a resolution of 1920x1080 without doing strange things. Yes, there's a difference between doing it and doing it well. The first step however is "doing it"

 

[NTMBK]

No. If you connect that graphics chip to a 1080p screen, it will literally catch fire.

 

[Durvelle27]

i would say no as i have the same board and a P4 2.80GHz cpu and it would stutter while playing 1080p movies so i just threw in a cheap $5 HD 3650 and fixed that problem

 

[mikeymikec]

No. If you connect that graphics chip to a 1080p screen, it will literally catch fire.

Damn Intel and their glass ceilings... errr, glass ceiling polished with petrol.. or something...

 

[darkewaffle]

I'm going to go with yes, we have some real old Dell Optiplex machines at work that run 1920x1080. They're not all natively compatible and some of them needed some special drivers or a bit of manual driver hacking, but it can be done. Pretty sure they're all using an equal or lesser IGP than that.

 

[tcsenter]

Yeah it will support 1080 for the display but I wouldn't expect flawless video decoding at that resolution. Check for a motherboard BIOS and graphics driver update. Some motherboards may not support it due to a dated VGA ROM, which is embedded in the motherboard BIOS.