Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel and gaming

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 7, 2009 2:16:45 AM

I hate going after Intel time and again, but what choice do we have when they just dont get it? They of course want to promote their upcoming plans of integrating the lousy igps on die. Do they seriously think the gaming sector (devs,studios etc) welcome this? Having the ability to play old old games isnt progress, its de-evolution at its finest.
Ive heard people bragging as well as Intel itself time and again pointing out how many of their igps they sell, thus undermining the gaming industry, and gaming on a PC as a whole, especially. I know AMD is also doing this, but currently having igps that are at worst twice as good as anything Intel has to offer tells a very telling tale. They (Intel) have never cared about gaming casual gaming or any other kind of gaming. I point out the Vista debacle, for those who dont know, M$ lowered their standards on Vista to accomodate Intels crappy igps, again, de-evolution.
Now, I know the regular defenders of Intel are going to jump on this, but lets not be fanboys here. If you dont game, this isnt for you. More and more people game each day, and going backwards isnt the right direction, I dont care if AMD or Intel are integrating their igps or not.

I like my gaming. My prime focus of enjoyment on a PC. This kind of attitude only pushes PC gaming farther down a road its been on for awhile, and I believe this has been 1 of the major contributors. People saying that this is OK to do, it inhibits many things in many ways, which I wont list here. Having Intel lead the way in this manor, to me is dangerous for PC gaming, especially when Intel, IMHO, just doesnt get it

PS If Intel is a leader in the PC industry, they arent showing it here, like they have in other areas. Dont ask the game devs to lower down to Intels levels, its time Intel stepped it up to the big boys of igps

More about : intel gaming

a c 127 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
April 7, 2009 3:34:42 AM

Few things here you forgot to mention. Thos sales that Intel gets are normally from the business market. You know, giant companies like Citi who buy the machines with IGPs for production, not gaming.

And second, Intel is the leader in most semiconductors. But problem is their two main focus areas are CPUs and flash based NAND memory. You know as well as anyone though that they have Larrabee planned. That may be their way of stepping it up in the game. The first SoC CPUs will be just a start and probably designed for business needs, like Intel has always catered to, and people who don't game.

Then they will probably look into a better GPU.

Personally I don't give AMD credit for what they are planning with a IGP on the CPU. They are just taking what ATI has had planned and developed and putting it in. Thats all fine and dandy but the biggest problem is that if they never bought ATI they wouldn't have anything except their CPU market.

Personally I think you like to attack Intel. But thats just me. You know just as well that Intel has never really made IGPs for gaming. In fact it still insane to try to truly game on a IGP, even one from ATI/nVidia. They just do not have the power needed to enjoy every game out there. Maybe some games that are based on older engines like L4D or any Source engine or Quake engine.

Anyways. I think you just need to give Intel some time. They didn't take the easy way out and buy a GPU company like AMD did. Although if they did it would have been interesting to see. Instead they are developing their own GPU and I am sure they will have a full fledged team working on it as well as a large portion of their software/driver devs working on it.
April 7, 2009 3:39:22 AM

The only possibility I can see of igpus being used in games would be to have the menu done by that to save a little bit more power before jumping to a proper gpu for the meaty stuff of the game.

Now... if they REALLY wanted to get my attention, they'd advertise the fact that you'll probably be able to fold on igpus while playing games with your proper gpu.
Related resources
April 7, 2009 3:51:38 AM

I agree Intel needs to step it up. I also agree if Intel changed their attitudes before LRB, and bought a ATI, then this thread wouldnt exist.
First of all, everyone knows the when Intel talks, people listen. I just dont want to hear this http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...
or this http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10212356-64.html?tag=...
or this
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-igp-graphics-amd...
Intel is in no position to talk here. I understand what youre saying from a business standpoint, but having more than 1 gpu can be done. The older igps from nVidia and ATI are still faster than Intels best. If they can 2 tier their cpus, why not igps? 1 for business, the other for casual gaming? Theres NO excuse, I wouldnt apologize for Intel here, and especially with what theyre doing, by promoting this ilk.
Read my links, this isnt about business, and its my point here. You still want to aplogize with this going on, with Intels intentions given by my links go ahead
a c 127 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
April 7, 2009 4:05:15 AM

In that link to Fud (or fave for some reason) why are they talking about the chipset as a whole and not the IGP?

Intels chipsets are better than nVidias in pretty much everything unless it is in the IGP area.

Either way Intel is just talking business. I say give them time. You expect them to pull a IGP/GPU killer out of their ass in less than a year when you know that R&D takes a few years to do then development of the actual product.
April 7, 2009 4:09:52 AM

Heres the point. Itd be like VIA leading the charge for cpu usage in gfx rendering on cpus. The ONLY difference is, VIA is not in the position to better thamselves there like Intel is. Im just saying, Intels current igps arent up to snuff for gaming compared to the competition, and thus, they shouldnt be going around saying these things.
Theyre the ones blocking the nVidia Atom scenario. Theyre the ones saying netbooks dont need superior gfx solutions, and preventing it from happening. And they come out with this? Either they dont get it, or they think people are stupid. Here, we are serious gamers, and dont look at this as a possibility unless were stuck with out lappy somewheres with some time to kill. No one wants to game on Intels igps even in that scenario. They show numbers, sure, but what they arent getting is people want more, are asking for more. Businesses such as nVidia are willing to invest and risk their monies on these type things, yet Intel denies them. Gall comes to mind, and thats all
April 7, 2009 4:14:07 AM

Problem is jimmy, this has been going on for years. Hasnt changed at all. As gaming becomes more demanding, Intel fails, year in, year out. Id like to see them actually stick a decent igp on their future SoCs, but this isnt the time to go around promoting it til they actually have something worth a damn
a c 127 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
April 7, 2009 5:03:39 AM

Dude Atom is made to be a SoC for netbooks and the such. Not a cheap gaming solution. In fact the current IGP for the Atom is a leway for the IGP that will be placed on the die. Do you think Intel will just throw a nVidia one in there? Not a chance as it will raise the cost by whatever nVidia wants to charge.

nVidia states that Intel is undercutting competition in the Atoms market. Well nVidia obvioulsy forgets that Intel gets 2500+ Atom chips per wafer. Take the cost of th wafer and the FAB cost then divide by $2500 and you get a freaking uber low cost chip.

nVidias CEO has a big mouth. He wants to make sure ppl have to buy their chipsets in order to do SLI. Intel was willing to set a trade: Nehalem code for SLI on X58. but instead they want it for their chipsets only. Yet AMD is willing to let Intel use Crossfire. Why don't they do the same thing/ Block Intel. because they know its more profitable.

And no I don't think that a netbook, made for surfing the internet, needs a 9600M. It wont have the processing power to even game except for maybe flash games.
April 7, 2009 5:09:40 AM

Hey JDJ let's talk about the good things intel has going for
themselves right now, like the crown in the server market
has ben placed on intels head and the D0 stepping hitting
about 4.3 on air with a i7 920.

http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=584
April 7, 2009 5:17:37 AM

Youre skirting around the issue. Arent the duals supposed to have enough power to push a decent igp? Is so, and Intel wants to promote igp usage, why not in their currently most lucrative product? Cant have 1 without the other, unless you try. On the one side, Intel isnt trying with their igps, on the other, theyre promoting igp usage. On one side, they prohibit the usage of other igps in their exclusive market, yet ship out to TSMC or whomever to create a SoC, so it stays exclusive. This is cutting edge? Leadership? This and their previous track recoed with igps are forwarding tech advancement? Or is it simply greed? All the while laughing at us, witholding a superior product, all the while promoting their inferior one?
Sorry, but if a igp cant even run a OS, whoever made that igp shouldnt be advising gane devs
April 7, 2009 5:25:18 AM

Intel is , or at least looks to be, kicking @$$ in server. But thats for a different thread. Now if only they could make a decent igp. Or, allow others to at least attempt igp usage in the netbook arena. Ive already said, I dont prefer 1 cpu over another, so lets not go there, and re aim this thread. Itd be awsome to see a SoC system with on board Intel igps that work as well as their competitors, as I think this has slowed gaming on PCs overall potential, simply as an entry scenario, and Intels failing igps dont give a future PC gamer a good enough experience. Yes, Id like to see that change. But, at the same time, what Intel is doing here is wrong, they just dont get it. This isnt a win win scenario. It appears to be a win only for Intel, and thats not good enough, according to their high standards, which theyve met since C2D
April 7, 2009 5:33:03 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Intel is , or at least looks to be, kicking @$$ in server. But thats for a different thread. Now if only they could make a decent igp. Or, allow others to at least attempt igp usage in the netbook arena. Ive already said, I dont prefer 1 cpu over another, so lets not go there, and re aim this thread. Itd be awsome to see a SoC system with on board Intel igps that work as well as their competitors, as I think this has slowed gaming on PCs overall potential, simply as an entry scenario, and Intels failing igps dont give a future PC gamer a good enough experience. Yes, Id like to see that change. But, at the same time, what Intel is doing here is wrong, they just dont get it. This isnt a win win scenario. It appears to be a win only for Intel, and thats not good enough, according to their high standards, which theyve met since C2D



You are right, my bad it is for a different thread but it seems like you
are ducking all of them.
April 7, 2009 5:44:09 AM

Dont just read the bad in my comments. Ive said all along, it appears Nehalem will be a server monster, as well it should, as it was made for that. Thats why Im also excited about i5, it doesnt contain the more useless for DT varitions i7 has, I think should do as well in DT , run much cooler, oc higher, using alot less power, and the main reason Im not all that excited about i7, unless you have a good use for it. People misunderstand me. If Intel plans on having a decent igp in the future, as before P2 came out, and AMD made their claims, I said show me, same here. Itd be very welcome to see, cause I like gaming, and this would be a bigger step in the right direction than alot of people , especially here, as theyd never game on igp, could or do see on the effect of PC gaming. This could mean better games, and whos against that? Its just Intel is being too stingy, and still slowing the gaming markets full potential. No one except M$ has more pull in this industry, and theyve done little to help.
I just think its wrong to go on this way, without some show of promise, and of course, to then live up to it
April 7, 2009 8:24:29 AM

Not again.... :sarcastic: .....

/facepalm
a c 127 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
April 7, 2009 8:44:27 AM

M$ has done little to help? WTF are you talking about? They made Games For Windows which helps devs make sure their game will run properly on Windows, created a FREE (thats right FREE) version of their game developing software that people can create unique games on and for a yearly membership fee have M$ actually print the disks and package and sell them and it also allows the games to be made for both PC and 360.

To me thats a hell of a lot more than the GPU companies are doing. Hell nVidia still has buggy ass drivers that screw up some games. L4D is a great example. It has multicore support meaning it will use as many threads as you have. But nVidias drivers and certain nVidia chipsets and GPUs cause L4D to crash. A friend of mine is having this exact problem.

And TBH with you, no Intel is not slowing the gaming markets. Hell most game devs go based off of GPUs not IGPs. Thats why most new games tend to need a beefier GPU than CPU.

But whats so wrong with Intel working with game devs to make sure thatt the game supports their IGP? Nothing. To me all Intel is doing is saying "Hey this is what our IGP can do with this or that, see what you can do to utilize its power".
April 7, 2009 9:21:41 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I hate going after Intel time and again, but what choice do we have when they just dont get it? They of course want to promote their upcoming plans of integrating the lousy igps on die. Do they seriously think the gaming sector (devs,studios etc) welcome this? Having the ability to play old old games isnt progress, its de-evolution at its finest.
Ive heard people bragging as well as Intel itself time and again pointing out how many of their igps they sell, thus undermining the gaming industry, and gaming on a PC as a whole, especially. I know AMD is also doing this, but currently having igps that are at worst twice as good as anything Intel has to offer tells a very telling tale. They (Intel) have never cared about gaming casual gaming or any other kind of gaming. I point out the Vista debacle, for those who dont know, M$ lowered their standards on Vista to accomodate Intels crappy igps, again, de-evolution.
Now, I know the regular defenders of Intel are going to jump on this, but lets not be fanboys here. If you dont game, this isnt for you. More and more people game each day, and going backwards isnt the right direction, I dont care if AMD or Intel are integrating their igps or not.

I like my gaming. My prime focus of enjoyment on a PC. This kind of attitude only pushes PC gaming farther down a road its been on for awhile, and I believe this has been 1 of the major contributors. People saying that this is OK to do, it inhibits many things in many ways, which I wont list here. Having Intel lead the way in this manor, to me is dangerous for PC gaming, especially when Intel, IMHO, just doesnt get it

PS If Intel is a leader in the PC industry, they arent showing it here, like they have in other areas. Dont ask the game devs to lower down to Intels levels, its time Intel stepped it up to the big boys of igps



Jaydee, you need to get over this obsession that you have developed. Intel is in the server business, no need for IGP in that arena at all. They are also in the business desktop arena, there they do need a minimal IGP. Intel is NOT in the gaming business, nor are they in the 'make Jaydee happy' business. What more do you want? You want Intel to make a pciex16 GPU on a chip? Just to make you happy? Companies have business models to adhere to, shareholders to make happy. Buy enough shares, show up at the meetings, and have your say. Until then, let Intel run Intel's business. They seem to be doing pretty well without your valuable input so far....
April 7, 2009 2:57:31 PM

Heres some Intel braggadocio http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...
Say whatever you want. Intels igps are crap. Defending them is more defining you, and nothing more.
@ jimmy, I was still talking about Intel, just included M$ as to its overall influence, and agree with you on what M$ has done, and has much more stake in gaming than Intel currently does.
I know many of you dont like my postings on this, but its the truth. As for which business theyre in, I guess it depends on what they currently have. Intel was in the server business also when they were getting their collective butts whacked with inferior chips 3 years ago too. And their igps sucked and were last then as well. Excluding what you want to hear about a company isnt good, and Im thinking this obsession youre speaking of may be tilted more on the other side, tho you may not see it.
The claims theyre making, things theyre asking is ridiculous. Id be willing to bet that most people see it my way by large margins, and that when it comes to this whole thing, itd be best if Intel just shut the hell up about it, as they surely just dont get it
April 7, 2009 3:11:42 PM

Let me define what Intel wants. It wants devs to offer games so they can run on their igps that are archaic by todays standards, and this is the leading chip maker in the world? They offer the smaller netbook, yet somehow, they cant ship any non SoC'd chips to anyone, unless they want to pay huge monies for them, but can ship them to TSMC, no problems? Thus, netbooks will have the capacity of the original nintendo systems, and this is progress? If this were VIA, wed all be laughing, wouldnt we? Answer that one first, if you insist on defending Intel on this matter, I want to hear your VIA answers, as I think its legit to say, as our unabashed, open, non fanboy attitudes shouldnt hold for this type of thought, right?
Having double standards define us. Im not here typing this about those standards, and have yet to hear a decent response. Im thinking Intel, if they dont change, should just stay in the server business, and just shut up when it comes to games and gaming at this point, because they really have very very little to offer. But alas, they arent. And thats the only reason Im typing this.
Of course theyre seeding the market for their eventual igp on board scenario, thats obvious. But if they think this is progress in gaming in any way, they just dont get it
April 7, 2009 4:21:21 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Heres some Intel braggadocio http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...
Say whatever you want. Intels igps are crap. Defending them is more defining you, and nothing more.


So you're telling me that you have no clue as to when a company is making a statement, or just engage in a cat fight with another company.

Yes, Intel's IGPs are crap. Yes, Intel wants everyone to use their IGP because they don't want Nvidia to take away their current 50% market share. Yes, Intel wants to convince those who are less tech-savvy to still use their IGPs so they can make money.

Get a grip :sarcastic:  :sarcastic: 
April 7, 2009 4:30:17 PM

The statement was to the devs. It requires a poor hw scenario. Whats good about that? How is this progress? Show me another area Intel is in last place when it comes to products they make? Are they advising the heads of that particular industry as well? Like I said, its like VIA trying to advise everyone for a new sse7 set or something, and shouldnt be seen as acceptable
April 7, 2009 5:01:32 PM

And the same logic can be applied to AMD's calling to use 3DMark06 to test laptop's battery life, or the use of SSE5.

Its what company does. Get over it.
April 7, 2009 5:18:57 PM

No, ones a standard, the other is a direction, that direction effects me as a consumer. it also effects the overall shaping of the gaming industry, which in the current scenario, with Intels poor igps, is the wrong direction.
Why should we accept the least common denominator, when that is Intels igps, when it should behoove us to demand Intel to make a better igp, or at the least, NOT to ask for this? To me, that makes sense
April 7, 2009 5:24:51 PM

My point is, when Intel goes SoC, having their poor trach record of igps, the choice will have been made, one way or another, and it is moot. But to ask for a lessoning just so itll comply is exactly what M$ did to Vista, on Intels behalf. If this is seen as a good thing, then whoever thinks that is wrong. We are going to be stuck with a inferior product, and the makers of that product are asking the users of that product (game devs) , to lesson their products as well to accomodate. There is nothing positive about this in my thinking as a gamer, period
April 7, 2009 5:28:47 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
No, ones a standard, the other is a direction, that direction effects me as a consumer. it also effects the overall shaping of the gaming industry, which in the current scenario, with Intels poor igps, is the wrong direction.
Why should we accept the least common denominator, when that is Intels igps, when it should behoove us to demand Intel to make a better igp, or at the least, NOT to ask for this? To me, that makes sense


Aren't you slapping yourself on the cheek there?

Quote:
Like I said, its like VIA trying to advise everyone for a new sse7 set or something, and shouldnt be seen as acceptable


So if VIA advices everyone to use SSE7, its unacceptable. But if AMD advices everyone to adopt SSE5, then its all of the sudden a "standard"?

By the way, anyone with a half a brain knows that using 3DMark06 for battery performance is idiotic at best. AMD is trying to sell their IGP performance, and shift attentions away from CPUs. You have to blind to not see this.

Is Intel's IGP horrible? Yes they are. They also control about 50% of the graphics market. Why is that? Because your average Joe doesn't need high graphic performance to check his facebook. It doesn't matter if AMD's IGP is great or not, people just don't NEED them.

So you can sit here and argue how Intel's IGP really sucks, it still doesn't change the fact that most people don't utilize high performance graphics card. Period.
April 7, 2009 5:32:18 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
My point is, when Intel goes SoC, having their poor trach record of igps, the choice will have been made, one way or another, and it is moot. But to ask for a lessoning just so itll comply is exactly what M$ did to Vista, on Intels behalf. If this is seen as a good thing, then whoever thinks that is wrong. We are going to be stuck with a inferior product, and the makers of that product are asking the users of that product (game devs) , to lesson their products as well to accomodate. There is nothing positive about this in my thinking as a gamer, period


Yes, competition is great, competition is grand, competition is freakin rad.

That is why companies tout their area of expertise in order to attract buyers. For Intel, their expertise is CPU, so they of course tried to shift focus away from GPUs. Both AMD and Nvidia's expertise are GPUs, so they will of course try to shift focus away from CPUs.

Again, its what companies do. Get over it.
April 7, 2009 5:51:31 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
My point is, when Intel goes SoC, having their poor trach record of igps, the choice will have been made, one way or another, and it is moot. But to ask for a lessoning just so itll comply is exactly what M$ did to Vista, on Intels behalf. If this is seen as a good thing, then whoever thinks that is wrong. We are going to be stuck with a inferior product, and the makers of that product are asking the users of that product (game devs) , to lesson their products as well to accomodate. There is nothing positive about this in my thinking as a gamer, period



Let me get this right, you don't want us to get stuck with inferior
products, So you go on a one man crusade about how good phenom
one was knowing it is a inferior product, and my reasoning for this is
if phenom II is such a great chip to you, which it's performance is actually
what phenom 1 was suppose to be and wasn't.
So you where tauting an inferior product to everyone in the forum,
again i'm rite it all depend on which company with the inferior product
you will stand behind. (JUST STOP THE DOUBLE STANDARDS !! )
April 7, 2009 5:57:36 PM

Too bad thatll soon end. You think the billions spenmt on LRB is nothing? As if it wont have an impact inside Intel itself? That fiiiiiiiinaly Intesl attitude towards gaming will have to change, or that one side will be pulling against the other? You think AMD proposing an SSE is the same as VIA doing so? You think the worst of competitors having too much influence wanting a worse case scenario as the norm acceptable?
Lets follow this thru. VIA announces a new SSE7, and everyone, including Intel has to follow suit because VIA has the clout to push it thru. Is this a good thing, when we all know the new VIA sse set is going backwards? Thats the scenario we have regarding Intel and its igps. They just dont get it
April 7, 2009 6:00:13 PM

If P2 was only 50% of i7 or C2Q, I wouldnt be saying anything about AMDs P2. But that is exactly what we have here with Intels igps. Add in their influence, and it adds up to a huge smell of de evolution
April 7, 2009 6:12:51 PM

Coming from 30% down, and having no ocing ability, and going to P2 was very welcome, and would be as welcomed to see Intel do so with their igps. No one, Not me or anyone has denied, suggested or implied Intel cant make both, a igp thats acceptable for gaming, and a igp thats exceptable for business. They own the business market. Lets see em grow in the gaming market too. Not too much to expect from the worlds leader in igps is it? Or, the worlds leader in cpus, is it? Theyre slacking, and using their influence for others to slack as well. It isnt right
April 7, 2009 6:20:57 PM

The issue here isnt Intel's crappy IGP, its Intel telling game devs to stop making games that wont run on their crappy IGP. Thats just dumb. Make a better IGP.
April 7, 2009 6:25:37 PM

I agree. It would put a smile on me to see Intel do just that, as itll be a step in the right direction
April 7, 2009 6:36:11 PM

I mean, within reason (power usage,size etc) who wouldnt want a igp that could at least play games, all games? The question proposed in Toms article assumed going backwards was acceptable, as if itd end the discrete gpu market. By going forwards, it would put pressure on it tho, which I have mixed feelings about. But progress is progress.
Going back and looking at the old VHS format vs Sonys beta, it went like this. It was proprietary, it was seen as foreign, it was too big, where the vhs format was smaller. Now, who actually made the better product? Sony. Whatd we end up with? A lessor product. The differences here and Intels igps are, they arent nearly as close in performance to their competitors as we saw in vhs vs beta, which vhs was seen as good enough in the end, because the difference wasnt large enough, but thats just not so with Intels igps. Theyre not even as good as 50% of whats currently available in their competitors, and that includes video playback as well vs power usage, not only games. They stink, period
April 7, 2009 7:04:50 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Too bad thatll soon end. You think the billions spenmt on LRB is nothing? As if it wont have an impact inside Intel itself? That fiiiiiiiinaly Intesl attitude towards gaming will have to change, or that one side will be pulling against the other? You think AMD proposing an SSE is the same as VIA doing so? You think the worst of competitors having too much influence wanting a worse case scenario as the norm acceptable?

Intel's attitude towards gaming will change when Larabee hits the shelve. For the time being, an Intel IGP is sufficient for everyday use. Sure I agree, if you're a gamer, Intel IGP is horrible. But that's not what most general public is, right?


Lets follow this thru. VIA announces a new SSE7, and everyone, including Intel has to follow suit because VIA has the clout to push it thru. Is this a good thing, when we all know the new VIA sse set is going backwards? Thats the scenario we have regarding Intel and its igps. They just dont get it[/quotemsg]

So let me get this straight. What you're saying is when AMD announced the SSE5, which was not endorsed by anyone but themselves, is a step forward. But when VIA hypothetically announces SSE7, which does not exist, its going a step backward?

I'm not quite following your logic here. Oh wait, maybe because there isn't one.
April 7, 2009 7:08:29 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
If P2 was only 50% of i7 or C2Q, I wouldnt be saying anything about AMDs P2. But that is exactly what we have here with Intels igps. Add in their influence, and it adds up to a huge smell of de evolution


JAYDEEJOHN said:
Coming from 30% down, and having no ocing ability, and going to P2 was very welcome, and would be as welcomed to see Intel do so with their igps. No one, Not me or anyone has denied, suggested or implied Intel cant make both, a igp thats acceptable for gaming, and a igp thats exceptable for business. They own the business market. Lets see em grow in the gaming market too. Not too much to expect from the worlds leader in igps is it? Or, the worlds leader in cpus, is it? Theyre slacking, and using their influence for others to slack as well. It isnt right


JAYDEEJOHN said:
I agree. It would put a smile on me to see Intel do just that, as itll be a step in the right direction


JAYDEEJOHN said:
I mean, within reason (power usage,size etc) who wouldnt want a igp that could at least play games, all games? The question proposed in Toms article assumed going backwards was acceptable, as if itd end the discrete gpu market. By going forwards, it would put pressure on it tho, which I have mixed feelings about. But progress is progress.
Going back and looking at the old VHS format vs Sonys beta, it went like this. It was proprietary, it was seen as foreign, it was too big, where the vhs format was smaller. Now, who actually made the better product? Sony. Whatd we end up with? A lessor product. The differences here and Intels igps are, they arent nearly as close in performance to their competitors as we saw in vhs vs beta, which vhs was seen as good enough in the end, because the difference wasnt large enough, but thats just not so with Intels igps. Theyre not even as good as 50% of whats currently available in their competitors, and that includes video playback as well vs power usage, not only games. They stink, period


Let me introduce you to something...



Seriously, you can go on and on about Intel's IGP sucks for gaming. Its a dead horse. Stop beating it.
April 7, 2009 7:19:14 PM

Thing is, do you know how good SSE5 is? Ever heard of clout? Maybe SSE5 sucks? Maybe its good? One thing we know, Intels igps sucks. But, guess what? If Intel follows thias with their clout, this is what we will be stuck with. Dont see the logic in that, for you, I give up
a c 143 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
April 7, 2009 7:47:42 PM

I think B-Unit summed up the point of this thread very nicely. We all agree that Intel IGPs suck, so I don't think anyone, fanboy or not, wants game developers to retard their products so Intel's IGPs are good enough for them.
Considering thermal and power issues, what level of performance would be "good enough" in an IGP? 9500GT? 4670? More?
April 7, 2009 8:01:34 PM

Id love to see the 4670 level, as itd actually allow entry level a decent showing of what PC gaming is capable of, maybe enough eye candy to want them to go to the next level as well, and for those of us that want a brief experience time and again, when were away from our main rigs, and want some entertainment done right
April 7, 2009 8:24:18 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Thing is, do you know how good SSE5 is? Ever heard of clout? Maybe SSE5 sucks? Maybe its good? One thing we know, Intels igps sucks. But, guess what? If Intel follows thias with their clout, this is what we will be stuck with. Dont see the logic in that, for you, I give up


On the same token, do you know how effective VIA's SSE7 is? Ever heard of it? Maybe SSE7 sucks? Maybe its good?

As I said, Intel's IGP is horrible, period. They suck for gaming, period. Anyone who's thinking about gaming should not buy an Intel IGP, period. I'm not arguing that Intel's IGP is not horrible, but rather it is good for the general public. Intel, just like any other company, will do anything to make their products seem important, just like AMD. Don't see the logic in that, for you, I give up.

Get rid of your bias please. Thank you.
April 7, 2009 8:28:40 PM

I will agree that Intels IGPs are not nearly as good as nvidias or ATIs but there is nothing wrong with developing games to run on integrated hardware especially now.

Next gen content is notably expensive to develop for and given that game studios are cutting back due to fears about the economy maybe developing games that are not too demanding is a good Idea.

I am not talking about sh**y flash games either. Mobile hardware can play games that are inline with the original call of duty.(GMA x3100, yeah I was surprised it worked too)

How much would it cost to develop a Quake3 era game anyway?(id might still have a kung fu grip on the engine license though)

If companies can develop games for mobile platforms like the DS or PSP then why not the PC?
a c 127 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
April 7, 2009 8:31:22 PM

B-Unit said:
The issue here isnt Intel's crappy IGP, its Intel telling game devs to stop making games that wont run on their crappy IGP. Thats just dumb. Make a better IGP.


Oh I agree. But I don't find anything wrong with a company working with a game dev so they can have it run on low end and high end hardware. Most VALVe based games (minus L4D) still run on DX7 based hardware. L4D only supports DX9 because of its advanced shader engine. But TF2, HL2, Portal all of them run on even IGPs and yes even Intels IGPs.

Of course you could look at what AMD did where HL2 looked slow but hey you encode a video in the background with a dual core CPU and a IGP and see how well a game plays.

Anyways. Personally I don't care. Intel has a IGP thats mainly used for most non gamers (biggest part of the DT market) and businesses. A lot will change with Larrabee. That I know for a fact.

Oh and JD, don't forget that the power of a GPU based in TFlops means nothing. Remember a 4870 outpowers a GTX 280 in TFlops easily but not as easily in games.
April 7, 2009 9:22:35 PM

"If this is not enough for you the following games have issues or failing on GM45 even on low settings: World Of Warcraft, Age of Conan, WarhammerOnline, HL2 Titles (test EP2), Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Fallout 3, Call Of Duty, Crysis Warhead, Left 4 Dead, Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, Knight’s of the Old Republic 2 and probably many more."
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...
This isnt acceptable. And any newer decent game coming out, is a very high probability. So, lets just go backwards, create crap for craps sake. Sounds good to me. Maybe itll help the growth of PC gaming eh?
The 4890 is also higher in TFlops, and is the equivilant of the G280 in games as well, same chip, just a higher core. Its not about TFlops to be sure, but the point here is this. We soon wont have a decision. When the igp is brought on-die, itll be there to stay. If its crap on top of that decent cpu, how exactly does this help PC games and gaming in general? It leaves nVidia out in the cold to be sure, thus cutting down the competition, and itll make AMD shine. Now, you may ask yourself why wouldnt this make me happy? Because Im not a fanboy of AMD or Intel, thats why. So for all those complaining about my thread, its final end not only disproves many of your thoughts, it also shows your allegences. Sad to see actually. Id have thought a few would take gaming over fanboyism, but I guess Im wrong. Ill end it here. Most people know exactly where Im coming from, and to those who still think Im a AMD fanboy, dont bother making
false assumptions etc, as it just isnt so. I care more about gaming than any company, period. Some here obviously dont
April 7, 2009 9:45:15 PM

Umm, I guess where Im confused in your rant jaydee is whats the difference between a crap IGP on the motherboard or a crap IGP on your CPU, you can still put a discreet card in.
a b à CPUs
April 7, 2009 10:41:36 PM

B-Unit said:
Umm, I guess where Im confused in your rant jaydee is whats the difference between a crap IGP on the motherboard or a crap IGP on your CPU, you can still put a discreet card in.


Apparently his prob is Intel "forcing" the game developers to include extra-long performance sliders that you can move all the way to the left so as to make the game playable on IGPs.

Or maybe he fell outta the cranky side of his bed this morning :) .
a b à CPUs
April 7, 2009 10:45:37 PM

Actually, do we even know yet what kind of IGP Intel is going to include on-die? I thought the IGPs Intel made were all on the ancient 130nm or maybe 180nm chipset process. So, going to 45nm means Intel would have a ton of room to maybe increase performance?

I dunno, haven't been following the IGP news lately, in fact never :) , but maybe worth speculating on...
April 7, 2009 10:49:42 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Apparently his prob is Intel "forcing" the game developers to include extra-long performance sliders that you can move all the way to the left so as to make the game playable on IGPs.

Or maybe he fell outta the cranky side of his bed this morning :) .


I agree, thats how this started, but this statement...

JAYDEEJOHN said:
...
Its not about TFlops to be sure, but the point here is this. We soon wont have a decision. When the igp is brought on-die, itll be there to stay. If its crap on top of that decent cpu, how exactly does this help PC games and gaming in general?...



Has me wondering if he hasnt just jumped off the deep end
a b à CPUs
April 7, 2009 11:47:25 PM

B-Unit said:
I agree, thats how this started, but this statement...



Has me wondering if he hasnt just jumped off the deep end


I don't see why somebody couldn't disable the IGP, whether it's on-die or on the Northbridge, and use a discrete GPU. Actually for lappies you could use the IGP to save battery life and the discrete when plugged in and gaming.

My Dell XPS lappy only had the discrete 7950GTX GPU, since it was primarily portable gaming machine with a 17" WUXGA display, but with proper power settings I could usually get through an entire movie on a flight. With an IGP I could probably have gotten through 2 movies on the 9-cell battery.

Or maybe an hour of playing Tomb Raider on the plane (except I had the Nude Raider patch - probably would have gotten me kicked off the flight if the flight attendant spotted Lara bouncing her tatas around :)  ).
April 8, 2009 12:02:06 AM

hehehe I dont think those are the sharp objects they are concerned with.
April 8, 2009 1:00:57 AM

I didn't want to touch this one since I summed my sentiment on this matter in TH article about it but sheesh.. Intel sure sounds like they want developers to dumb down games for crap IGP sake. You can love Intel, burn candles around an Intel shrine, sacrifice AMD CPU's on your home made altar but what Intel is sounds pretty much what jdj is making light of. It disgusts me quite frankly. I like Intel CPU's. I run one now but you have to call a spade a spade. Their IGP's are not up to gaming and it is ludicrous to expect developers to take high end games and somehow make them playable on their weak offering.
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2009 4:08:19 AM

with the nehalem Xeon benchmarks out JDJ had to find something else to poo poo about
April 8, 2009 4:47:57 AM

BadTrip said:
with the nehalem Xeon benchmarks out JDJ had to find something else to poo poo about



Now I couldn't have said it better, right on target.
!