Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Integrated i5 graphics

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 18, 2010 4:28:33 AM

Hi All.

After reading "AMD Fusion: Brazos Gets Previewed: Part 2", I found the Dirt2 benchmark very Strange :

In WoW, the Zacate was easily the fastest (As I thought it would).
However, in Dirt2, the i5 got 26.5 FPS ?
How can this be possible? I'm using a i5 notebook right now and I know it can't even START 3DMark06...

Any ideas?

thanks!

More about : integrated graphics

a c 362 U Graphics card
a b Ý World of Warcraft
November 18, 2010 4:47:05 AM

Intel integrated video is not best for gaming.

Dirt 2 is more graphically demanding than WoW.
Score
0
November 18, 2010 4:49:55 AM

jaguarskx said:
Intel integrated video is not best for gaming.

Dirt 2 is more graphically demanding than WoW.


Yes, this exactly why I don't understand how the Intel integrated can do better than the Zacate (HD 6310) in Dirt2..

Still confused :??: 
Score
0
Related resources
November 18, 2010 4:59:00 AM

Quote:
3d mark doesn't start without a dedicated gpu.

@Jaguar I think OP wants to know how could tom get 26 flps using i5 hd graphics while on the other hand he cannot even start 3d mark with it.


From everything I know, the HD 6310 should be faster than ANY Intel integrated GPU. - MORE so for Dirt2.
This makes me think Dirt2 is much more CPU intensive than WoW since the i5 CPU is faster than the AMD Zacate (CPU part). ???

Not having a dedicated GPU explains the 3DMark06 part of my question:) 
Score
0

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
November 18, 2010 6:09:25 AM

Quote:
Dirt 2 prefers intel cpu.Thats a known fact.


No it doesn't, Dirt 2 has always favoured AMD cpu's. Even slower quad core phenom 2's beat the i7's for some reason.

The reason the i5 wins here is it's not using the integrated graphics, it's using a Quadro nvs 3100M, which is basically an entry level nVidia card just like the 5450. Obviously, Dirt 2 favours nVidia cards, and that is a known fact.
Share
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 18, 2010 6:44:58 AM

eyefinity said:
No it doesn't, Dirt 2 has always favoured AMD cpu's. Even slower quad core phenom 2's beat the i7's for some reason.

The reason the i5 wins here is it's not using the integrated graphics, it's using a Quadro nvs 3100M, which is basically an entry level nVidia card just like the 5450. Obviously, Dirt 2 favours nVidia cards, and that is a known fact.

Which is a tad odd considering that Dirt 2 was ATi's DX11 showcase.

Quote:
“DirectCompute 11 is a huge step forward from DirectCompute 10 (which was all that was available in hardware up to DirectX 10.1). The increased flexibility means that for most uses it’s far more efficient and there are cases of 2x or better improvement by moving to DirectCompute 11. DirectCompute 10 was really the first step towards a more generic programming approach on GPUs but now with DirectCompute 11, combined with the awesome power of a Radeon HD 5870, the future is really here.” – Bryan Marshall – CTO Codemasters


Source.
Score
0
November 18, 2010 6:49:03 AM

eyefinity said:
The reason the i5 wins here is it's not using the integrated graphics, it's using a Quadro nvs 3100M, which is basically an entry level nVidia card just like the 5450.


Good eyes. This explains a lot. (I should have seen this)
THG should have used integrated i5 graphics for the benchmarks, then that would have been a more fair test.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 18, 2010 7:28:53 AM

Quote:
My friend has a phenom ii x4 955 and i have q9550 both stock.We use 5850.I get 88 flps in dirt 2 benchmark ultra setting 4xaa and my friend get 75 flps in that benchmark.
What you have to say about that smartass?Now you will say i am posting BS.
Do you have any proof to back your statement?


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dirt-2-performance-...

Those are minimum fps totals though, so I guess it's possible that you get higher averages and lower minimums. 13 fps more doesn't seem very likely however. It's a far more gpu intensive game.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 18, 2010 7:31:09 AM

Mousemonkey said:
Which is a tad odd considering that Dirt 2 was ATi's DX11 showcase.


Like Mafia 2 was for nVidia? You win some you lose some. AMD never set out to break nVidia's dx11 cards. nVidia didn't have any when Dirt 2 was released, how could they? :lol: 
Score
0
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 18, 2010 7:41:04 AM

eyefinity said:
Like Mafia 2 was for nVidia? You win some you lose some. AMD never set out to break nVidia's dx11 cards. nVidia didn't have any when Dirt 2 was released, how could they? :lol: 

Not so much, Mafia 2 was more of a PhysX showcase but Dirt 2 was a tessellation showcase as it was the first to use something that ATi have had a dedicated chip on their cards for for quite some time now.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 18, 2010 8:04:46 AM

Quote:
www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,700780/Dirt-2-CPU-benchmark...

And remember those benchmarks were done with unpatched version of dirt2.Latest patch improves significant performance.


And if you click the dx11 benchmark the Phenom II goes to the top (even beating a 3.5ghz i7). That seems to be in agreement with toms benchmarks. Maybe your friend has a lot of crap on his pc slowing it down?
Score
0
November 29, 2010 12:01:43 AM

Best answer selected by enewmen.
Score
0
a c 169 U Graphics card
a b Ý World of Warcraft
November 29, 2010 5:26:45 AM

This topic has been closed by Maziar
Score
0
!