Haswell will rival graphics performance of today's discrete cards!

[Nemesis 1]

As soon as AMD put Fusion into market, they jumped 3 generations ahead on IGP technology. Intel DOES NOT RENDER PROPERLY. They do not support DX 11. They won't, theorectically, until Haswell, which is at least a year off still.

By that time, AMD will have Trinity, maybe even something else on the block to release at the same time. AMD will be generations ahead, with better performance, and CORRECT RENDERING.

Intel doesn't even have the basics of filtering implamented correctly right now. And the only reason HD 3000 is 1/3rd the speed of Llano instead of being 1/6th, is because Intel is getting away with corner-cutting rendering, and falsely getting a preceived speed bump because of it.

Intel could double their EU in their chips right now, and suddenly be breathing down Llano's neck. DOESN'T MATTER. Until they fix their drivers and actually render games correctly, the speed of Intel IGP is a complete farce.

Really . I don't understand why the Mods are allowing this type of post.

IB has DX11 and the poster below this comment should KNOW its not true , As I have seen him in topics were this was discussed.



In a quiet corner of its website, Intel has shed light on a few aspects of the integrated graphics component inside its next-generation Ivy Bridge processor—the 22-nm "tock" that will follow Sandy Bridge. Intel Senior Software Engineer Philip Taylor revealed the details as part of an interview related to game development. Here's the official transcript:

• What is coming down the line this year? What is Ivy Bridge going to bring for game developers?
We have more graphics and multi-core samples coming, until they are a bit further along I don’t want to say too much, but you could expect post processing, texturing, terrain, that sort of thing

Ivy Bridge is going to be an exciting product. Not only does it continue with the improvements AVX processor SIMD vector capabilities D3D11 and DX Compute Shader, 30 percent more EUs ( execution units ) and supports up to 3 displays and HDMI 1.4a, and an overall bandwidth boost from PCI 3.

That last bit should probably be "PCIe 3," which I'm pretty sure is what Taylor said. (You can listen about 10 minutes into the video.) We've heard whispers about Ivy Bridge featuring built-in PCI Express 3.0 connectivity before.

The talk about DirectX 11 support and triple-display capabilities is interesting, because those happen to be two of the main selling points AMD uses to promote its latest entry-level graphics cards. Also, with 30% more execution units, Ivy Bridge's integrated graphics component could turn out to be faster. I think that's good news for PC gaming in general—not just because Intel will raise the bar of what a cheap PC can do, but because AMD and Nvidia will likely have to counter with quicker entry-level GPUs, too.

 

[Nemesis 1]

When Haswell comes out, AMD will be 6 generations ahead of Intel. Yea, I can make stuff up too.

I know you can make stuff up . Its easily seen . Care to point out were I am making something up . Because I will get links to cover my arse.

 

[Nemesis 1]

As soon as AMD put Fusion into market, they jumped 3 generations ahead on IGP technology. Intel DOES NOT RENDER PROPERLY. They do not support DX 11. They won't, theorectically, until Haswell, which is at least a year off still.

By that time, AMD will have Trinity, maybe even something else on the block to release at the same time. AMD will be generations ahead, with better performance, and CORRECT RENDERING.

Intel doesn't even have the basics of filtering implamented correctly right now. And the only reason HD 3000 is 1/3rd the speed of Llano instead of being 1/6th, is because Intel is getting away with corner-cutting rendering, and falsely getting a preceived speed bump because of it.

Intel could double their EU in their chips right now, and suddenly be breathing down Llano's neck. DOESN'T MATTER. Until they fix their drivers and actually render games correctly, the speed of Intel IGP is a complete farce.

In all the years I was in this forum . I rarely spoke on the rendering I was viewing , Because It wasn't pretty at all on the ATI cards after NV 42 46 48 Ti series. Because they were just as bad . For the most part ATI had the better Render. But don't bragg about how good they are because I can still see it. Its never really bothered me.

Drivers Yep ATI and NV have years advantage . But ya now its like the X86 alot of blot. NV AMD have massive driver software stacks. Were as Intels driver software stack is tiny in comparison. Intel really doesn't have to worry about older games. So no need to do driver work on them . Intel like it or not is the graphics market leader with their lowly IGPs . Hurts doesn't it .

 

[AtenRa]

I swear, I am going to slap the next one using the term "gaming power" about Llano...it might be WAY better than anything Intel has...but that dosn' mean it's worth anything in real world gaming...it's still a joke in regards to gaming.

Guess what, you can play games with Llano even at 1680x1050

Are you going to insist AMD is 3 generations ahead of Intel on IGPs .

I dont know if Llano is 3 generations ahead or not but it produces double the frames of the HD3000.

Intel's IB iGPU will need to have double the SB iGPU performance in order to come close to Llano in gaming, and even if they will pull that out they will be facing Trinity soon after (i will say Q2-3 2012).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4476/amd-a83850-review/5

 

[Jionix]

You can talk all day long about DX11 and How Fusion Llano coming out suddenenly leeps 3 generations ahead . SB . Jan . 2011 . Undisputed best ever IGP until LLANO . Because LLANO is DX11 scrathes arse, So when IB appears with DX11 will intel magicly jump 4 generations ahead because Intels compiler tech is 4 generations ahead of AMDS.

Ha, ha, ha, this post is just a comical failure of logic and sense. Compiler tech? What are you talking about?

Look, maybe you don't understand. Intels current drivers are severely lacking. They are so lacking, that it will take Intel quite sometime to get them in shape to even being close to AMDs. AMD, just by adding ATI's lowest form of discrete technology to their IGP, is leaps and bounds ahead of Intel by default. Why? Because AMD has unified graphics architecture. Everything is ready to go, driver wise, from day one.

You seem to be stuck on speed only. And I've said before, Intel can throw all the EUs they want at the problem. They can fool people like you, and certain reviewers, but they can't fool everyone.

Right now, Intel doesn't even render DX9 to the correct standard. And how old is that? There is no support for OpenGL. DX10 support? There is no DX11. But, all that will be fixed, right? Next release will solve all this?

Unlikely.

This is how Intel will solve the problem.

Intel will add a path for DX11 and double the EUs. That's it. How good will it be? Given Intels experience and past habits, it's going to be more of the same. But because it's an IGP, Intel will be safe in the fact that most of the reviewers WILL NOT EXAMINE RENDERING QUALITY. But, if they do, Intel can always just make sure that the top 20 games and benchmarks render at least mostly correct. They try and do that now, and trust me, it doesn't work out so well.

They will not worry about DX9 support, because it's old. They will not worry about DX10, because who cares? OpenGL will never be added.

But, you might argue that, this is an IGP. It doesn't need to have all that other junk. It just needs to play WoW and the Sims. And that is why Intel will never have a graphics chip that will be competitive in the full sense of the word.

 

[ieatdonuts]

May I reiterate that mobile llano is at least twice as important than desktop llano? If not more given the increasing irrelevance of desktops for an average computer user - the kind of person who would buy a llano in the first place.

And in my mind mobile llano is still not quite good enough for solid 768p gaming. Neither is the HD 3000, but the difference is someone who would buy a llano is by default going to be concerned with graphics while someone who buys a Sandy Bridge more often than not has no use for anything more than the IGP.

 

[Idontcare]

Dilbert found out too, Llano was much more important:

 

[ch33kym0use]

You remember Slot A and Slot 1 CPU's? Pathetic attempt at a graphics card.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Ha, ha, ha, this post is just a comical failure of logic and sense. Compiler tech? What are you talking about?

Its as I suspected your clueless.

As for the rest of your Post . All i can say mods are giving you alot of room here. NO DX 10? Barely does DX9 No open GL support . I never said once Intels IGP was up to NV quality.
But this is Intel as you said and after the Dragon was awakened . Intel has shown up big time . Ya Intel did take the long road . But their is a reason Intel didn't buy ATI . But paid big bucks for lets say MCafee. Thats something else we need to consider AMD had NO graphics they had to spend 5 billion + and give up their fabs because they blew it .
YA I believe AMD should have bought ATI . But for around 2 billion . Dave took AMD to the cleaners on that . I put a nice peace of change in my pocket.
I have ever reason in the world to love AMD . As its made me 6 figure profits on shorting them . and owning ATI stock . But I don't because After its all said and done their going to stay in the cellar were they belong . If Intel was worried about AMD It would have considered buying NV . But what does intel do ? They buy 25% of Imagination Tech . Apple owns 15% . Those of you hoping for AMD on Apple. Don't hold your breath. Only discrete cards. Its a actually a standing joke around here .

I don't mind the side of the debate your on but keep it honest you have lied several times. Its like another poster here that kept insisting AMD can use the Vexprefix . Were they going to get the code not from intel . Instruction sets . and code are not the same . Amd can use the AVX instruction set only . And intel actually legeally made it so AMD has to stay in parimators . As intel reserved the space above 256bit. Intel can use that space but AMD can't until after the fact 2 generations behind. You say so what . and I say exactly my point. Its all compiler work . Intel is going to abstract the very most out of its hardware . AMD can't because they are tied down at AVX256 bit . Until intel officially goes AVX512 B AMDs hands are tied . Than again Above the 512 bit intel has that space reserved. Intel can use it but AMD can't until Intel goes AVX1024b . I see clearly you don't understand this . But if you go back read the OPs statements than read the AVX 2 info we have . It might shed some light in that closet your in .

Also I doubt you have an SB and so you haven't a clue about its graphics other than what ya read , I can find games that both NV and ATI don't do so good . I believe NV just fixed one that was giving it fits

go read AT preview of Zacata and watch the AMD videos . When finely released It wasn't as we were told at all . Ya AMD is in a bad position and for some reason which may or may not be honest . The review sites are bending over backwards for them . You don't just recieve respect . It has to be earned . AMD has done nothing to earn this kind of bending over backwards by review sites kissing their arse.

 

[SirPauly]

Intel like it or not is the graphics market leader with their lowly IGPs .

Yeah, they are. But how are they doing it? Is it more technology leadership or technology leveraging?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Guess what, you can play games with Llano even at 1680x1050



I dont know if Llano is 3 generations ahead or not but it produces double the frames of the HD3000.

Intel's IB iGPU will need to have double the SB iGPU performance in order to come close to Llano in gaming, and even if they will pull that out they will be facing Trinity soon after (i will say Q2-3 2012).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4476/amd-a83850-review/5

Nice results . I hope to play ya on line . Your talking about AMDs superior rendering . Lets move the quality to high and use DESK top res. I mean those resolutions on todays desktop are a joke . 1 step forward 2 steps back . USSR all over again.

 

[Cerb]

Nice results . I hope to play ya on line . Your talking about AMDs superior rendering . Lets move the quality to high and use DESK top res. I mean those resolutions on todays desktop are a joke . 1 step forward 2 steps back . USSR all over again.

Moving the goal posts to midrange gaming, again (that said, 1680x1050 is a desktop resolution; mine, in fact). That's not what it's good at, and never has been called good at. The 5570 will croak with higher details, too; and anything of that level or higher is also going to cost more. Once a certain price threshold is reached, there is no point to Llano.

 

[Jionix]

As for the rest of your Post . All i can say mods are giving you alot of room here
...

But for around 2 billion . Dave took AMD to the cleaners on that . I put a nice peace of change in my pocket.

I have ever reason in the world to love AMD . As its made me 6 figure profits on shorting them . and owning ATI stock . But I don't because After its all said and done their going to stay in the cellar were they belong . If Intel was worried about AMD It would have considered buying NV . But what does intel do ? They buy 25% of Imagination Tech . Apple owns 15% . Those of you hoping for AMD on Apple. Don't hold your breath. Only discrete cards. Its a actually a standing joke around here .

That's twice that you have made a remark that I am being given a "lot of room" by the mods. What have I posted that is not appropriate?

And then, in the same breath, you go off on a wild tangent that has nothing really to do with... anything. You are simply a pot calling a kettle black.

I don't mind the side of the debate your on but keep it honest you have lied several times.

Yes? Care to point out my lies?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Moving the goal posts to midrange gaming, again (that said, 1680x1050 is a desktop resolution; mine, in fact). That's not what it's good at, and never has been called good at. The 5570 will croak with higher details, too; and anything of that level or higher is also going to cost more. Once a certain price threshold is reached, there is no point to Llano.

Cerb don't take my words to mean. I don't Like were llano is heading because I do . Intels going there also . Intel was first out of the gate. Now LLano Out Intel has a target . Than AMD replies . My point is Neither Intel or Llano is Good enough to do High res . Eye candy . I sure most here try to do both. But I could be wrong . It seems many people are going to sell there present rigs to buy the LLANO powerhouse. These 2 1st generation cards are just that. Follow what the posters are saying LLANO compute doesn't matter Until we talk trinity . Than were right back to compute . This is what I don't like . Watch how it plays out between Llano and IB . It will be drivers . Than trinity it will be IB can't play games at mid level . When it does better than llano .

Same as What were talking here. They slam Intels render . Yet playing at mid level eye candy llano great . If you don't mind midlevel you really aren't that fussy about render.

 

[Nemesis 1]

That's twice that you have made a remark that I am being given a "lot of room" by the mods. What have I posted that is not appropriate?

And then, in the same breath, you go off on a wild tangent that has nothing really to do with... anything. You are simply a pot calling a kettle black.




Yes? Care to point out my lies?

No I don't It would be much better for everyone if you would read ATs article on SB IGP and you can than tell me . Not only that I all ready told ya . Ya just don't get it.

I won't debate drivers no point, But What your saying goes against what anand has said. Intels drivers have gotten way better for SB . Intel is moving fast on drivers . Hows this you tell anand he doesn't know what he is talking about . You 2 guys debate it . Compare the 2 SB systems that lead you to believe this . Your SB against the one Anand used

Are you a glass half full type or a glass empty type . Some how you have fooled yourself on the driver thing . Myself I don't care the drivers on intel need ALOT of Work , I mean alot of work . I am fine with that . I am perfectly aware of the performance improvements better drivers bring . As bad as you make Intels drivers out to be . Gives me much assurance that SB IGP has about 80% better performance to be gained just threw drivers alone . Amd not so much . Because their drivers are utterly fantastic . So little improvement to be had from drivers. So the upside for intel SB by your own words is very promising .

 

[Cerb]

Cerb don't take my words to mean. I don't Like were llano is heading because I do . Intels going there also .

You mean commodization such that we get stuck with entry-level crap more and more often? If so, welcome to 2007. Long-term trends ahve accelerated with the recession, and that's one of them. The low end with low margins is ever more popular, and good enough for so many users.

It seems many people are going to sell there present rigs to buy the LLANO powerhouse.

Selling anything better than a 1st-gen Core 2 Duo for a Llano would just be silly (at least without very good reason).

Follow what the posters are saying LLANO compute doesn't matter Until we talk trinity . Than were right back to compute .

Intel will have a CPU that much faster then, even assuming BD is good. It doesn't matter so much because the class of systems that will be taking advantage of Fusion aren't going to be high-end for some time to come. The high-end ones will mostly have added GPUs, and Intel will maintain a significant advantage on CPU performance, short of a miracle. BTW, I also personally think it is a major oversight on AMD's part not to add IGP to upcoming Opterons, with pro branding and drivers (think Quadro NVS210, revisited), because so few 'pro app' users need anything but CPU performance...but that's kind of it's own tangent.

It will be drivers . Than trinity it will be IB can't play games at mid level . When it does better than llano .

AMD's got Intel beat on drivers by quite a bit. The real questions, IMO, are (a) how long will it take Intel to catch up, and (b) will they tie driver improvements to new hardware? If b, it's quite possible that we could see some Intel CPU generation, without warning, all of a sudden have excellent IQ and application compatibility.

 

[CPUarchitect]

And when every Intel CPU comes bundled with your GPU software rasterizer you stand to become the next Bill Gates, right?

Huh? I don't have a GPU software rasterizer, and I don't know what Bill Gates has to do with CPU architectures.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Larrabee is a good example of how unlimited resources are not always a recipe for success.

All the CPU power in the world is pointless without competent graphics, at least for the vast majority of the market. People are so hung up on "AMD's CPU performance is too slow" but give Intel a complete pass when their graphic performance is borderline worthless. Going by history, AMD is capable of having the performance lead in CPUs, Intel has never done this with graphics. Something has to drastically change at Intel for them to finally take the GPU seriously.

You can give Intel a pass on the graphics because you can add a 50.00 card that will equal Llano or a 100.00 card that blows it away. As someone else noted, why would you want to use up half your CPU making a so-so graphics. Just make a fast CPU and add a discrete card.

I am talking about desktops here, obviously. In laptops or netbooks, Fusion seems more of a compelling solution.

 

[Shift_]

I'm really confused at how some people in this thread are claiming that "for the majority of people" that graphics performance is more important than cpu performance.

Maybe for gamers, but for the majority of people? I have an old laptop that runs a core 2 duo and some form of intel GMA 3xxx integrated graphics. Works perfect for me for what I use it for, note taking, word procesing, spreadsheet making, emais, surfing the internet, youtube, I have in the past hooked it up to a 1920x1200 res monitor, watched 1080p videos fine, bluray and youtube included. Runs photoshop when I need it and I'm not at home with my more powerful machine. The lowly GMA 3xxx doesn't seem to slow down programs like MS paint and Solitaire and flash games either. Oh wait...those are all CPU related things.

I doubt the majority of people require anything more than that for graphics, and most would appreciate faster boot times, application loading, etc which is cpu depedant and not gpu dependant.

Lets not forget most computers in the world are found in standard business offices for doing things like spreadsheets, memos, emails, web surfing, and other things along those lines any modern onboard graphics from intel are overkill for what they do, they are more concerned about perfomance/watt, which intel is dominating at right now as they tend to keep computers for several years, the less energy they use the more money they save in the long run.

I am a fan of the APU, but to claim that advancements in graphics performance has more relevance to "the majority of people" than cpu performance is misguided at best.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I'm really confused at how some people in this thread are claiming that "for the majority of people" that graphics performance is more important than cpu performance.

Maybe for gamers, but for the majority of people? I have an old laptop that runs a core 2 duo and some form of intel GMA 3xxx integrated graphics. Works perfect for me for what I use it for, note taking, word procesing, spreadsheet making, emais, surfing the internet, youtube, I have in the past hooked it up to a 1920x1200 res monitor, watched 1080p videos fine, bluray and youtube included. Runs photoshop when I need it and I'm not at home with my more powerful machine. The lowly GMA 3xxx doesn't seem to slow down programs like MS paint and Solitaire and flash games either. Oh wait...those are all CPU related things.

I doubt the majority of people require anything more than that for graphics, and most would appreciate faster boot times, application loading, etc which is cpu depedant and not gpu dependant.

Lets not forget most computers in the world are found in standard business offices for doing things like spreadsheets, memos, emails, web surfing, and other things along those lines any modern onboard graphics from intel are overkill for what they do, they are more concerned about perfomance/watt, which intel is dominating at right now as they tend to keep computers for several years, the less energy they use the more money they save in the long run.

I am a fan of the APU, but to claim that advancements in graphics performance has more relevance to "the majority of people" than cpu performance is misguided at best.

Er, so GPU doesn't matter more, but then you list a bunch of things that improved GPU performance allowed?

Pretending that its not is outright delusional. Even if you don't game (which is silly to say, the majority of people do game; might as well point out that the majority of users don't do the things that need more CPU power), there's tons of stuff that is GPU accelerated, and its growing. Plus, as processing becomes more parallel, GPUs will bring even bigger gains. We're already getting to the point that advancing CPU performance will involve advancing GPU performance (hence why Intel is increasing GPU performance).

Your point about efficiency is confusing as well. GPUs are improving power efficiency.

 

[Arkadrel]

I doubt the majority of people require anything more than that for graphics, and most would appreciate faster boot times, application loading, etc which is cpu depedant and not gpu dependant.

Most people dont care if it takes 30sec or 45sec to load windows or whatever, esp not the ones buying mainstream pcs/laptops.

Same thing with load times... most programs you click, it goes pop-up within a sec or so and thats that. People dont care if it takes 2sec to load or 1sec.

works perfect for me for what I use it for, note taking, word procesing, spreadsheet making, emais, surfing the internet, youtube

Any modern pc can do those just fine atm, reguardless of bran of cpu, or how fast the cpu is. Esp for mainstream useage.

I actually think mainstream users would prefer more gpu increases for their laptops/small desktops, than more CPU power. Most people have more than enough cpu processing power already and dont run any applications where its really put to use.

The same CANNOT be said for stronger gpus. Give mainstream users stronger gpus, and they ll start playing at higher resolutions or differnt games. It ll provide a vastly differnt(better) experiance for them (something adding more cpu prowess probably wont).

 

[SirPauly]

Then why does Intel garner so much revenue if the CPU isn't so important or consumers are fine by existing CPU performance. What's the point of improving the performance when most end-users are happy about their performance? The CPU is by-far the most important core in a system but the GPU is gaining relevance that goes beyond gaming and why the future is more so about heterogeneous computing, imho.

 

[Dribble]

That's the bottom line - cpu performance will make a much bigger difference to most people then gpu performance will. For the AMD camp the mantra is cpu performance just needs to be good enough, it's gpu performance that really matters. In the real world it's the other way around most of the time. Just like SB, Haswell should mean Intel's gpu is good enough for most users.

Fusions other mantra is gpu compute matters a lot - you need a cpu that can do it. One day that might be true but that day is a long way off yet. Being as AMD is small and poor that is unlikely to change until intel starts pushing opencl, which isn't going to happen till they are faster at it then AMD.

 

[AnandThenMan]

You can give Intel a pass on the graphics because you can add a 50.00 card that will equal Llano or a 100.00 card that blows it away.

The vast majority if the market is served by integrated graphics. Given this fact, Intel has held back the adoption of graphically rich content more than anyone else by far.

 

[ieatdonuts]

I agree with the posters before me. I think Fusion will start to really matter when it starts to integrate the GPU for more than just graphics - for compute, for processing. Apparently the future is fusion for everything...