Can Lucidlogix Right Sandy Bridge’s Wrongs? Virtu, Previewed

Benchmark Results: Virtu In Action

We plucked Battlefield: Bad Company 2 out of our usual benchmark suite, and were immediately impressed to see this DirectX 11-based title running through the Intel HD Graphics output at 1920x1080.

The performance drop attributable to Virtu is relatively minor in both cases. Although the GeForce GTX 580 takes a larger performance hit, I still consider >90 frames per second in Bad Company 2 well worth picking up Quick Sync support.

We see the same situation in F1 2010, as AMD’s Radeon HD 6970 loses a paltry three frames per second, while the GeForce GTX 580 takes a roughly 10% performance hit. Nevertheless, 70 frames per second are still ample to enjoy this title at 1920x1080 and 4x anti-aliasing.

Same story, different game. A relatively minor performance drop doesn’t affect playability in any meaningful way.

This time it’s the AMD card taking a larger penalty, while Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 580 comes out barely scathed at all.

In three of four cases, we were able to run a DirectX 11-based title through Intel’s integrated graphics engine. And World of Warcraft might employ DirectX 9, but there’s no way we’d see such compelling results at 1920x1080 using Ultra quality settings and Intel’s modest integrated core.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
61 comments
    Your comment
  • AMD's Fusion stuff integrates without needing software though right?
    2
  • I'm pretty sure that Fusion only works with AMD parts, but the idea whould be the same. Anybody else remember this company's ads on the side of some of Tom's articles?
    0
  • I wonder how much the Z68 will cost.
    1
  • I suppose a multi-monitor setup, main screen for gaming on the discrete card (assuming game only uses that one screen), secondary on the Z68 Output of the Intel HD card, will not have any need for this, and just run perfectly.

    Thats how i will roll, once Z68 gets out.
    0
  • sounds cool, although the whitelist could be a deal-breaker for a lot of people.
    0
  • seems like we are heading to what voodoo graphics and TV tuners were doing long long time ago. just now over the PCIe bus.

    I wonder why it's so difficult to map framebuffers and create virtual screens ?
    0
  • I dont want a cheap graphic solution producing heat along my precious CPU...
    1
  • This sounds like software technology that should be built straight into OS's, instead of added as separate layers... maybe OS manufacturer's need to wake up (*cough* Microsoft)
    0
  • I already sent back my sandy bridge setup, that's to bad. Guess it's Intel's loss huh?
    0
  • This is another absolutely useless piece of crap. Why in the world would you put deal with another stupid layer and why would you use Intel integrated graphic chip (or any integrated solution) along with your dedicated video card???

    Conclusion of this article is...don't go with such nonsense solution.
    -1
  • (unrelated to article)
    Dear Tom's,
    your pull down menu for page navigation sucks. I mean it really really sucks. I am so annoyed that it makes me want to stop reading the articles. It is the worst design of any webpage. I use IE, Firefox, and Chrome. It's very hard to jump through pages using the pull down menu. Please fix the style of it.
    0
  • Again Intel and AMD move to integrate graphic chip into CPU is good for mobile useless for anything else. It is far from being smart solution for desktops unless they can pack GTX580 capable card into....mmmm i don't think so.
    4
  • I'm sorry but Intel seriously didn't bother to allow you to do transcoding with the EPUs with a discreet card?? WTF are they thinking!?
    0
  • @HP79

    I agree with you. You guys need to implement partial rendering on this site. It is annoying how much it flickers on post back actions.
    1
  • I've been asking for using the integrated GPU for GPGPU purposes, and the discrete for gaming for a year now.
    It seems like we're slowly getting there.
    I'd like to run PhysX, but why not on the HD 3000 instead of a second $200 card, requiring a more meaty power supply, better cooling etc.?
    0
  • Why care about quick sync when you have a discrete GPU?
    -1
  • Who needs this ? Mobile users can use Optimus, as part of native NVidia drivers. And for desktops, why do I need this at all ?
    0
  • I wished the intel graphics could be used for most desktop activities, and the discrete card as main monitor connector for games, using a dual monitor setup.
    It's a much easier, and much better approach!

    Play games on the discrete, while your desktop is showing on the other monitor.
    1
  • ^^-*edit while your desktop is showing through the intel card*
    0
  • sblantipodiWhy care about quick sync when you have a discrete GPU?


    Because the discrete GPU can't do what Quick Sync does :)
    0