Intel Sandy Bridge does not support DirectX 11 ??

[Chess Gator]

Hello group,

I was planning on upgrading to Sandy Bridge in 2011. I just read the following CNET article:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20016302-64.html

Thomas Piazza, an Intel fellow and director of graphics architecture for the Intel Architecture Group, said that Sandy Bridge-based chips in their current implementation will not support DirectX 11, a Microsoft technology for accelerating multimedia and games. Currently, Sandy Bridge supports DirectX 10.1 and OpenCL 1.1--the latter used on Apple's Mac operating systems, according to Piazza. Certain graphics chips from Advanced Micro Devices' ATI unit and Nvidia already support DirectX 11.

Why would Intel come out with their self proclaimed "next generation Intel CPU" that does not support the latest DirectX 11 drivers??

What am I missing here?

Thanks,

CG

 

[Edrick]

The IGP inside SB does not support DX11. I am sure they have their reasons. I assume they are not going after the high end Dx11 market with these chips. And I am confident IB will be DX11.

The SB CPU itself naturally does (with a DX capable graphics card).

I think that is what you were asking.

 

[jvroig]

Why would Intel come out with their self proclaimed "next generation Intel CPU" that does not support the latest DirectX 11 drivers??

I am unsure of their reasons, but this is something that has already been known well before that article, so it is certainly no surprise.

If I had to guess, it probably is simply a matter of priorities. Making their GPU DX11 compliant probably looks like a poor proposition (more engineering resources, no practical advantage). After all, would you actually run a DX11-featured game with their integrated GPU? And since DX11 naturally falls back to DX10 and even to DX9, it won't make much difference to the end user anyway, since DX11 games will just work (they won't get the flashy DX11 features, but I doubt they could have enjoyed it with the integrated graphics anyway).

 

[Chess Gator]

Hi, so what you are saying is the CPUs built in GPU only handles DirectX 10.1 and is meant more for micro-products like netbooks and handhelds. However, as long as you have a separate Video Card with it's own GPU that can handle DirectX 11, then endusers will be able to use the FULL power of DirectX11?

Thank you,

CG

 

[jvroig]

Absolutely. Whether a system can or cannot run DX11 is a function of the GPU. The CPU has nothing to do with it.

 

[RussianSensation]

I was planning on upgrading to Sandy Bridge in 2011. ... "next generation Intel CPU" that does not support the latest DirectX 11 drivers??

What am I missing here?

You are missing performance. SB graphics is about as fast as ATI 5450/G310M from NV, both of which are not capable of playing DX10 games even today (unless you are going to play in non-native LCD res of 1024x768 with everything on Low), nevermind DX11 games. Adding DX11 to SB at this time would have contributed to an even larger die size of the GPU with an even greater performance hit that DX11 brings in almost all DX11 games (aside from Civ5 perhaps). For example, HD5770 is about 55% slower in DX11 in Dirt 2 than an HD4890 is in DX9. Now imagine SB graphics doing DX11?

You should try to find a $50 deal on a GTS250/4850 by the time SB ships if you want any kind of budget gaming. It shouldn't be that difficult by January of next year considering 4850 already hovers around $60.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Chess Gator, the software that can run on the CPU is code-agonostic. You can run them as long as you can program them. But for GPUs, DX functions are very specific. A DX11 GPU can't run DX12 functions.

And its kinda funny to say DX10.1 is for handhelds and netbooks considering those products can barely do DX8 properly don't ya think?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Hello group,

I was planning on upgrading to Sandy Bridge in 2011. I just read the following CNET article:



Why would Intel come out with their self proclaimed "next generation Intel CPU" that does not support the latest DirectX 11 drivers??

What am I missing here?

Thanks,

CG

What are you missing . Nothing but tess . Other than that whats missing from intels DX10.1 . They have CL1.1 they have GL3. I guess they can do direct compute . So the only thing missing is tess.

 

[swerus]

The IGP inside SB does not support DX11. I am sure they have their reasons. I assume they are not going after the high end Dx11 market with these chips. And I am confident IB will be DX11.

The SB CPU itself naturally does (with a DX capable graphics card).

I think that is what you were asking.

Yes the reason being that intel sucks at making graphics chips.

 

[Chess Gator]

And its kinda funny to say DX10.1 is for handhelds and netbooks considering those products can barely do DX8 properly don't ya think?

No, SB has a GPU on board for the netbooks and handhelds, not the desktops which have videocards, as discussed above. They can barely do DX8 on todays CPUs, but that wouldn't be the case with SB, they would be able to use DX10.1. The netbooks and handheld markets are huge and they are always hungry for more powerful CPUs with onboard GPUs.

Cordially,

CG

 

[Edrick]

Yes the reason being that intel sucks at making graphics chips.

Considering they hold a large market share in GPUs, granted all intergrated, they must be doing something right. :hmm:

If you said they suck at making "gaming quality" graphic chips, I would agree.

 

[Nemesis 1]

No, SB has a GPU on board for the netbooks and handhelds, not the desktops which have videocards, as discussed above. They can barely do DX8 on todays CPUs, but that wouldn't be the case with SB, they would be able to use DX10.1. The netbooks and handheld markets are huge and they are always hungry for more powerful CPUs with onboard GPUs.

Cordially,

CG

This isn't were SB will play . This is were Atom Oak trail will play . I have to listen to this Intel graphics BS for 1 more year . Than it will be over . I think SB ended it. Ivy bridge will expand on it . To were people start taking real notice and Haswell will be end game. A zapata 9watt won't cut it in these markets . Netbooks only . If AMD tries to take on intel with this chip it will get stepped on hard . Battery life is the market.

 

[swerus]

Considering they hold a large market share in GPUs, granted all intergrated, they must be doing something right. :hmm:

If you said they suck at making "gaming quality" graphic chips, I would agree.

True they are entrenched in the market through force, and I am typing this response on my i5 laptop. Doesn't change the fact they are horrible igps compared to Nv and ATI.

 

[IntelUser2000]

No, SB has a GPU on board for the netbooks and handhelds, not the desktops which have videocards, as discussed above. They can barely do DX8 on todays CPUs, but that wouldn't be the case with SB, they would be able to use DX10.1. The netbooks and handheld markets are huge and they are always hungry for more powerful CPUs with onboard GPUs.

Cordially,

CG

You are seriously overestimating the GPUs used in handhelds and netbooks. The GPUs used in handhelds are in average about half what the much-hated GMA950 in Netbooks can perform. That's for the "high-end" ones that can cost 2x the amount Netbooks do.

Oh, and its also ridiculous from the engineering viewpoint. The GPU in Sandy Bridge alone probably uses 3x the power required for the entire handheld. Of course, that's also because the GPU power in Sandy Bridge is around 10x even with the HD5450 performance level.

I don't get what you mean by "not being able to do DX8". DX 3D functions are handled by the GPU, not the CPU. Clarkdale's GPU can already to DX10 too. Please inform yourself a bit more before going with "Sandy Bridge CPU can't support DX11". Of course it can, you buy yourself a video card. If you are talking about the graphics in the CPU, that's another matter entirely.

 

[Nemesis 1]

There is only 1 game I play on my internet machine and Thats BHD old game . At first when it came out My machine ran it blasing fast. Now 6 years latter I struggle . Because of FPS. Against the newer stuff . I can't wait for SB retail because My frame rates more than tripled on sb in that game . I have ATi 1950 now and it just doesn't have it.

I would love to go online and play at server right now but that is forbidden at this time. At 5 ghz . I will destroy these clowns on server . Not only will I overpower them . But for first time in my life I will cheat at gaming use the dam-n hacks and be done with these low lifes. Never seen more hackers in a game than this one . Thats because Nova sucks big time. But I like the game .

 

[Cogman]

True they are entrenched in the market through force, and I am typing this response on my i5 laptop. Doesn't change the fact they are horrible igps compared to Nv and ATI.

One thing you have to give to intel. Though their graphics cards may suck, their drivers are phenomenal. ATI and Nvidia could learn a thing or two about making good graphics card drivers. (I've never had a buggy Intel graphics card driver... For ATI and nVidia it is all too common).

 

[Nemesis 1]

^ ?????

Sb graphics drivers will likely be a lot better Intel took all the software out . So the driver stack is very small . Very smart on intels part .But hardware your stuck with what you get ,

 

[khon]

Good decision by Intel on this one.

You couldn't possibly play a DX11 game on integrated graphics anyway, so there was no need for them to waste the additional space needed for DX11 compatibility.

It's a triumph of common sense over PR nonsense.

 

[OCGuy]

I cant even run DX11 on my 5850 in BF:BC2. Why in the world would a non-gaming GPU need it?

 

[Nemesis 1]

^ exactly . The best part is were about to find that out . AMD dx11 Vs. Intel SB DX10.1

Tess must be turned on because its a feature.

 

[bryanW1995]

One thing you have to give to intel. Though their graphics cards may suck, their drivers are phenomenal. ATI and Nvidia could learn a thing or two about making good graphics card drivers. (I've never had a buggy Intel graphics card driver... For ATI and nVidia it is all too common).

yes, I'm sure it's hard to make graphics drivers that ensure optimal performance of espn.com and ms word. how'd they do with larrabee again?

I cant even run DX11 on my 5850 in BF:BC2. Why in the world would a non-gaming GPU need it?

if civ5 can figure out how to run dx11 properly I suspect that amd and nvidia will get it eventually. Hopefully the next round of games will start with dx11 from the ground up and really bring out the faster/higher quality promise.

 

[wlee15]

One thing you have to give to intel. Though their graphics cards may suck, their drivers are phenomenal. ATI and Nvidia could learn a thing or two about making good graphics card drivers. (I've never had a buggy Intel graphics card driver... For ATI and nVidia it is all too common).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2818/8

While we're making disclaimers, we also need to mention that Intel's GMA 4500MHD failed to run quite a few games until we force DirectX 9 mode. In fact, out of the 18 titles that we tested, the Intel laptop still failed to run four of them. These four titles would crash to the desktop and nothing we tried fixed the situation. That's pretty bad if you're interested in gaming, but we do have to give Intel some credit: the last time I tried to test gaming compatibility with an Intel IGP (GMA 950), only about one third of the titles would even load properly!

That doesn't look too good for Intel's GPU driver team does it?

 

[Obsoleet]

I would guess DX11 hardware would be more unified than DX10.1, allowing for better integration with the CPU than 10.1 would allow.

This was done to not embarrass it on DX11 apps, in which no matter what they do it won't perform well. It's also probably easier for them to design, as the process was started long ago.

 

[Nemesis 1]

^ Could you expand upon your statement . But do so first in the knowing that SB

1. SB has CL1.1 support
2. SB has Gl3.1 support
3 SB Has direct compute support

SB does not have hardware tess.

Now please explain your beliefs.