• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ivy Bridge GPU Performance- Up to 60% Faster than SNB & Better QuickSync.

I think Intel deserves this more than the nVidia vs AMD thing ever did:

Alert me when Intel has decent display drivers.

But other than that, nice to see they are continuing to take graphics seriously. Great strides from the 4500 integrated days.
 
Vesku said:
I think Intel deserves this more than the nVidia vs AMD thing ever did:

Alert me when Intel has decent display drivers.
Click to expand...

So true, though they certainly have made some good improvements lately.

One amusing point though is that they aren't doing so well on actually releasing their drivers. Namely, if you go to their download center and navigate graphics -> processor graphics -> 2nd gen you get a windows 7 driver version 2361. Meanwhile, if you do Desktop Boards -> 6 series chipsets -> DH67GD (or any other graphics capable board) then you get windows 7 driver version 2476.
 
The problem with this is... You have to upgrade the whole CPU to get the benefit which is more much expensive generally than just upgrading the discrete GPU.

Add in the fact that 60% is still behind the $70 dGPU level.

I see this benefiting systems like the MacBook Air and the like much more than anything else.
 
I mean were going to disable the GPU anyways. Video cards will always be more cuz their dedicated to do one thing and they do it extremely well.

Intel drivers , not too worried about that, they release it or you have to hunt it down.. ala chipset drivers...

Maybe one day the GPU built inside the CPU will be faster then a dedicated video card but that day is not today...

This article becomes pointless for 90 percent,, who have video cards... thx
 
So Intels 3rd gen gpu will still be less than amds first gen fusion. To bad AMD doesn't have the cash flow to really show them how to make a gpu.

I would hate to think where Intels igps would be if they wasn't mooching off nvidia. :\

I'm just spouting off 😛
 
formulav8 said:
So Intels 3rd gen gpu will still be less than amds first gen fusion. To bad AMD doesn't have the cash flow to really show them how to make a gpu.

I would hate to think where Intels igps would be if they wasn't mooching off nvidia. :\

I'm just spouting off 😛
Click to expand...
The problem is that nobody cares. Intel's GPUs sell well because their CPUs sell well, and AMD's integrated GPUs have mediocre sales because their CPUs have mediocre sales. 3D performance and driver quality are irrelevant to the vast majority of the market, all that most computers require is a working video output.

I know that some people have the idea that AMD has sold "10 million" Llanos, but I have yet to see any numbers supporting that.
 
formulav8 said:
So Intels 3rd gen gpu will still be less than amds first gen fusion. To bad AMD doesn't have the cash flow to really show them how to make a gpu.
Click to expand...

For the market they target with their IGP, I am sure IB will be very competitive.
 
a 30%-60% gain in GPU power, is still LESS than Llano
(it has 100%+ on a Sandy Bridge GPU).

Also Trinity will be out by then, which will likely be with a stronger iGPU than Llano has.


The good part is this:

The other information about Ivy Bridge's GPU has been known for a while: DX11, OpenCL 1.1 and OpenGL 3.1 will all be supported.
Click to expand...
Directx11 for people with ivy bridges 🙂

And OpenCL! so now we will see ALOT more software with OpenCL come out (this is probably what will kill CUDA, because Intel CPU sales + iGPU > CUDA sales)

(esp when u consider, everything can do OpenCL, while only nvidia gpus can do CUDA)
 
Last edited:
Edrick said:
Great, and it will still be memory starved.
Click to expand...


True..

I really wish they would make a trinity platform with Quad channel memory.

Even if motherboard prices go up 20% or something because of it, and it means people will have to buy 4 sticks of memory (instead of just 2).

The extra bandwidth could probably be put to good use, by the iGPU.
 
Ivy Bridge GPU Performance up to 60% Faster? I'll believe it when I see some reviews and benchmarks first, otherwise I treat it as another marketing slide. Can Anandtech get one for preview? 😛
 
Zap said:
Why not? How much faster was HD 3000 over whatever Clarkdale had? Over Intel GMA 4500?
Click to expand...
That was a surprise. But then with only 1 or more year to work on the GPU part (from the time Sandy Bridge was conceived), I do wonder if Ivy Bridge is able to muster that extra 60% in such a short time (which included DirectX 11 support and drivers). :hmm:
 
BlueBlazer said:
That was a surprise. But then with only 1 or more year to work on the GPU part (from the time Sandy Bridge was conceived), I do wonder if Ivy Bridge is able to muster that extra 60% in such a short time (which included DirectX 11 support and drivers). :hmm:
Click to expand...

Some of the leaked die shots from IB show a lot of the core dedicated to the IGP. GPU performance that is not bandwidth starved (like the current HD 3000) should scale very well with more transistors.
 
Vesku said:
I think Intel deserves this more than the nVidia vs AMD thing ever did:

Alert me when Intel has decent display drivers.

But other than that, nice to see they are continuing to take graphics seriously. Great strides from the 4500 integrated days.
Click to expand...
They already do... For Linux. 😀
 
tweakboy said:
Maybe one day the GPU built inside the CPU will be faster then a dedicated video card but that day is not today...
Click to expand...

Actually that day is today depending on how fast you're willing to look back and how long your upgrades are. The integrated Radeon R6xxx in my current computer is certainly faster than the discrete Radeon 9250 I had (yes, I went from AGP Radeon 9250 directly to the current integrated Radeon I have now).
 
lol123 said:
The problem is that nobody cares. Intel's GPUs sell well because their CPUs sell well, and AMD's integrated GPUs have mediocre sales because their CPUs have mediocre sales. 3D performance and driver quality are irrelevant to the vast majority of the market, all that most computers require is a working video output.

I know that some people have the idea that AMD has sold "10 million" Llanos, but I have yet to see any numbers supporting that.
Click to expand...

integrated GPU performance matters in the mobile market, and the mobile market is bigger than desktop now
 
i'm really impressed in how well the integrated graphics performed on the sandy bridges, another boost will make these great for low and mid end systems who only want to play DoTA and CSS
 
OS said:
integrated GPU performance matters in the mobile market, and the mobile market is bigger than desktop now
Click to expand...

And Imagine Mobil Market and Entry Level DeskTop Market share......
Smooch! This would be perfect Sweet Spot.
 
OS said:
integrated GPU performance matters in the mobile market, and the mobile market is bigger than desktop now
Click to expand...

And power consumption matters to 1000x more users than the GPU. Sorry, for a real mobile laptop, Intel is the only option (Intel + NV optimus is pretty good too). AMD is good as a destkop replacement, but very poor on power usage and overall system speed.
 
The A series power use is supposed to be competitive;

38796.png


http://www.anandtech.com/show/4444/amd-llano-notebook-review-a-series-fusion-apu-a8-3500m/7
 
perhaps they're counting on faster DDR3 (or even 4) RAM that'll be out when IB is released to boost the IGP performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top