Intel DX10 Drivers; NVIDIA Laughs

[Guest]

Intel releases its DirectX 10 drivers 2 years after announcement. NVIDIA says Intel's efforts are "downright incapable."

Intel DX10 Drivers; NVIDIA Laughs : Read more

 

[joefriday]

While I'm sure the driver update includes the G31, G33, Q33, and Q35, none of these IGPS are directx 10 capable. They are all base on the GMA 900/950 architecture, and as such, technically don't even qualify for directx 7, as they lack hardware TnL.

 

[nukemaster]

"I guess Intel%u2019s definition of capable is a lot different than our definition... a lot"

HAHAHA, remember the GeForce fx5200? that was a pile of crap too, but they sold it as DX9 but it could never get good fps in dx 9 games and in dx 8 even the GeForce4 ti4200 beat it most of the time. Its very unprofessional of a company to make such claims.(even when its true, its just not they way you do things)

joefriday, you may have a point there, if they do not have hardware t&l it kind of sucks. I have never looked into it.

 

[deminicus]

they keep talking about 2 years from now. That's all nice and all but what is up with todays graphics?? the 9800gx2, basically another 8800. Seems all they are doing is repackaging old tech...2 years of inching forward... this is what happens when nvidia has no real rival due to ati's hiatus during its merger... ATI finally releases something good and nvidia just ups the ante just enough to be slightly on top. Meanwhile i need to put my rig into liquid hydrogen approaching absolute 0 to play crysis at a decent framerate......... who is with me on this?

 

[justjc]

I still predict a repeat of http://www.news.com/2102-1001_3-230019.html from Intel when Larrabee comes. Situation is more or less the same with the small diffrence that there are fewer competitors to kick Intels butt

 

[Christopher1]

Frankly, Intel needs to go back to basics with their integrated graphics offerings and ONLY offer them for businesses who don't need high-speed graphics, and if they TRULY want to offer gamer-quality graphics..... LICENSE NVidia or ATI TECH!

 

[romulus47plus1]

It's going to be hell...
I mean the war between nVidia and Intel

 

[romulus47plus1]

It's going to be hell...
I mean the war between nVidia and Intel

 

[chaos23]

I'm not surprised about Nvidia's comments regarding Intel IGPs. I mean, even ATI laughs at the performance of Intel IGPs. They really suck.. and that's the truth to the matter.

 

[DjEaZy]

... intel is losing friends along the way... maybe nVidia should cut intel out off hybrid SLI???

 

[wild9]

Both AMD and nVIdia currently have IGP's (780g and 780a respectively), that drastically out-perform Intel's offerings. Gets a bit boring reading about 2010 when anything could and most likely will, happen before then. As it stands you can get an AMD-based chipset and run games as well as HD films on it, and that's what's selling not some promise of things to come. These parts are also made on a smaller fabrication process.

 

[wingless]

Intel is just so awesome when it comes to CPUs it seems, but they fail so hard at graphics. I'm amazed thats even the same company saying nonsense like this.

 

[killer_roach]

I don't think nVidia needs to link Intel's graphics solutions to poor performance...

...Intel's been doing it on their own for years.

 

[IntelNick]

Hi, I work for Intel. Here is some clarification: The importance of DirectX 10 is that it becomes a Microsoft Premium Logo requirement for all systems WHQL’d after June 1st 2008. Intel is not claiming this driver is a suitable solution for playing available DirectX 10 games. Right now, a discrete card would be required if DX10 gaming is your desire.
Also, DX10 is only supported by the Intel® G35, Intel® GM965, GL960 Express Chipset products as well as future products. It is also probably fair to point out that according to recent reviews, no DX10 capable integrated graphics are suitable for DX10 gaming.
Also, Intel's intergrated graphics chipsets excel in video playback. In standard definition some enjoy HQV scores of over 100. the Intel G965 and up are capable of playing HD content (eg: Blu-Ray). My Blu-Ray/HD-DVD media centre at home is based on G965 and it runs beautifully. The upcoming G45 has dedicated HD hardware in it that allows it to decode the top three HD codecs while using only small amounts of power. Everything depends on what you want to do with your integrated chipset.

 

[crom]

I think even business machines should get at least some 3d chipset support out of the box. Applications like Google Earth, Flash, Power Point, etc. all benefit significantly with a decent gfx chip.

 

[IntelNick]

Sure, and Intel integrated graphics are great for those applications. You can even play Battlefield 2 on Intel graphics: http://blogs.intel.com/technology/2007/08/gaming_on_integrated_graphics.php

 

[Guest]

I'll agree completely with NVIDIA when they'll make a chip fully compatible with x86 istructions set and 1 light year quicker than the best core 2 duo.
To be real winners they must challenge the enemy on his territory

 

[Guest]

is it just me or does it seem like nvidia is just talking **** and might be scared?

 

[Guest]

It'd do Nvidia well to keep friends, Intel's at the forefront of the CPU war and thus their motherboard chipsets are prime real estate. Not only that but Nvidia is stuck with Intel considering AMD is not likely to hurt ATI considering they're the same company now. Not only that, but for all of us that've known and loved Nvidia since the beginning, we know that they're likely to give us a bad family of GPUs for a generation or 2. Best example, the pure power and level of awesome found in Geforce 4 family (TI 4600 was a BEAST for its time) was followed up by the mediocrity of the Geforce FX series, even the 6 series was Meh. They got back on the ball with the 7-9 series, but they'd need to be wary in a market where they're an island on their own. They won't be partnering with AMD for obvious reasons, ATI has AMD backing them and pissing off Intel might just leave them without a friend in the world.

 

[crom]

I don't know. I've built a flash application and tested it on a Macbook with the integrated Intel chipset and then on my PC laptop using a 7900gs video card and the difference is very noticeable. It wasn't an OS issue either, since the flash performed equally as well on a G5 tower with an older ATI 9800 video card. Power Point has a difficult time rendering slides with an Intel integrated chipset as well compared to a dedicated card by Nvidia or ATI. Granted I haven't tried these new drivers. What resolution were those games running at? The demo behind that guy seem low res. Also why enable DX10 support on this without the ability to run DX10 enabled games like Crysis and UT3?

 

[IntelNick]

Flash and Powerpoint are CPU dependent. The graphics card won't accelerate them.

Also, the price difference between an Intel chipset with graphics, and one without is only around $10(and only a handful of Watts). If you could run Crysis on a $10 solution, I don't think the discrete graphics card manufacturers would be delighted. The games in the blog video are running at 1024x768.

 

[trapilales]

I don't know what's more pathetic. This fabricated so called 'war' between these companies, or the fact that they seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that PC gaming is becoming increasingly irrelevant and with it so are their products...

When are these idiots gonna wake up and realize that their biggest threat is not some other company, but the fact that almost all gaming publishers are moving away from the PC as a gaming platform...

 

[IntelNick]

PS: If you want to run Crysis at max setings, you should buy one of these: http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20080507corp_b.htm?iid=pr1_releasepri_20080507rb

 

[campdude]

i'm waiting for one of those Larabee.........maybe by then my cpu will be a bottle-neck. 2010? if larabee flops...
ATI or Nvidia will still be good.