The Intel GPU Thread

sunilramansunilraman
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
let's open up a discussion thread for the GPU side of Intel and what this might mean for Apple, ATI, NVIDIA



1. supply problems with ATi?

2. dicey relationship with nVidia?

3. intel extreme graphics getting a bad rap because of Dell's rubbish 'shared memory stuff'?



intel integrated GPUs unleashed: core Image? much better value when compared with ATI and NVIDIA for integrated (non-upgradeable) GPUs like iMac, Mac Mini, LAPTOPS?



here's something to kick off:

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm



4. HDTV support? dvi? hdcp? hdmi?

5. H.264 support? advanced encode/decode in chipset?

6. quicktime 7++ architecture support?

7. are we hoping for too much?



i'm sure you know what i'm talking about, and have similar questions, so let's face our Intel Integrated Graphics demons here.



lastly:



8. intel integrated graphics: simple GPU upgrades by popping out a GPU and popping in a new one (without having to replace an entire Mac-Intel motherboard)?

9. again, are we hoping for too much?

10. something tells me this is the part of Intel Apple wants too. Apple is also sick of being slaves to ATI and nVIDIA as much as slaves to IBM and Motonowhere/UnFreescale
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 45
    realityduderealitydude Posts: 2member
    I hope Intel doesn't force their integrated solution down our throats. No matter how awesome intel graphics seem, they aren't. Intel Extreme(ly lame) 2 graphics drove me away from Windows laptops into this sweet little dedicated VRAM Powerbook. It's really sweet when your GPU and CPU fight for resources.
  • Reply 2 of 45
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by realitydude

    I hope Intel doesn't force their integrated solution down our throats. No matter how awesome intel graphics seem, they aren't. Intel Extreme(ly lame) 2 graphics drove me away from Windows laptops into this sweet little dedicated VRAM Powerbook. It's really sweet when your GPU and CPU fight for resources.



    ah... that's the interesting question. could Intel offer for example for Mac-Intel powerBooks, an integrated GPU/motherboard/CPU/chipset thingy, with clear dedicated 256mb of vram, and say 1GB of DDR2 RAM?



    edit:

    and of course then we can wonder how a set up would benchmark openGL, coreimage, games, etc, against an ati-mobility 9700... hmm



    edit2:

    would such an integrated extreme graphics have much smoother 720p high-def playback (qt7, h.264) than competing (maybe more expensive?) ati mobility solutions ??
  • Reply 3 of 45
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by realitydude

    I hope Intel doesn't force their integrated solution down our throats. No matter how awesome intel graphics seem, they aren't. Intel Extreme(ly lame) 2 graphics drove me away from Windows laptops into this sweet little dedicated VRAM Powerbook. It's really sweet when your GPU and CPU fight for resources.



    If Apple employ Intel integrated graphics, it will be only for low end products like the Imac mini to cut down the costs.

    Otherwise, like in the X86 world, there is no reasons that anyone is forced to use the intel graphics chips.
  • Reply 4 of 45
    nvrsaynvrnvrsaynvr Posts: 64member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    If Apple employ Intel integrated graphics, it will be only for low end products like the Imac mini to cut down the costs.

    Otherwise, like in the X86 world, there is no reasons that anyone is forced to use the intel graphics chips.





    If Apple really wants to capitalize on their new found successes with OS-X, with the world watching and waiting to see what they will produce, they would not play down the iMac with an IC design. We dont't like it and the PC world will not accept it without a path to self upgrade. Market share is the target and thus require that Apple fall more in line with mainstream standards with greater options.



    Mac mini and portables yes...Everything else, NO!





    "Think Alike...BE Different!"
  • Reply 5 of 45
    macchinemacchine Posts: 295member
    GPU, GPU, GPU, GPU, GPU... I like to say GPU.



    GPUY, GUPY, GPUT, GPUTY, GPUTEE !!!



    GPU, GUPY, GPUT, GPUTY, GPUTEE !





    So there !!!
  • Reply 6 of 45
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NVRsayNVR

    If Apple really wants to capitalize on their new found successes with OS-X, with the world watching and waiting to see what they will produce, they would not play down the iMac with an IC design. We dont't like it and the PC world will not accept it without a path to self upgrade. Market share is the target and thus require that Apple fall more in line with mainstream standards with greater options.



    Mac mini and portables yes...Everything else, NO!





    "Think Alike...BE Different!"



    For the Imac, an integrated graphic card will be lame for sure : I made a typo error, I was speaking of the mac mini. I just add an I in front the word mac.

    Sorry for the confusion, but those I and e things are becoming an addiction for me



    In resume I agree entirely with your post.
  • Reply 7 of 45
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    The wimpy Radeon 9200 in my iBook trumps my pal's integrated graphics in his multi-gigahertz Celeron laptop when we play WoW.



    Things are laggy for me as well, but (no kidding) we have actually negotiated some areas so that he sets his character to automatically follow mine, turns the camera angle straight to the floor and zooms in (so he sees as little as possible) and then I run through the laggy area, his character in tow. On the other side he resumes normal play. Couldn't make it otherwise.



    That kind of graphics (or lack of) is not okay. Not for a mini, not for anything else. Either Intel is capable of giant leaps forward in GPU's, or Apple should stay the hell away from their integrated solutions.
  • Reply 8 of 45
    exhibit_13exhibit_13 Posts: 110member
    i think apple will probably stay away from integrated chips, since most people know that dedicated memory and such are superior. it would seem like a downgrade to use integrated graphics. also, with intel architecture, it seems likely that we will get pci-e (being optimistic), and we may then get some higher end graphics cards. for example, i was on the ati website yesterday, and they now have a mobility X800. while this is definitely a high-end chip, it opens up the opportunity to get some serious performance out of the new systems. hopefully we'll get some of the windows-only chips, even like the X700 and mobility 9800. just hoping, but to me it seems logical
  • Reply 9 of 45
    nvrsaynvrnvrsaynvr Posts: 64member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    For the Imac, an integrated graphic card will be lame for sure : I made a typo error, I was speaking of the mac mini. I just add an I in front the word mac.

    Sorry for the confusion, but those I and e things are becoming an addiction for me



    In resume I agree entirely with your post.



    I hear you on e & i thingy. I really thought you meant Mac mini and not iMac but of course I was unsure. I wonder if the mini morphs into a media center device how that might affect GPU choice. I think we'll have an idea with REV B.





    Nolan
  • Reply 10 of 45
    smalmsmalm Posts: 677member
    The integrated graphics core of the Calistoga chipset will be faster than most ATI X300 solutions. So we will see it in the Mac mini.

    I don't know what Apple will do with iBook and eMac but all others will have dedicated graphic chips for shure.
  • Reply 11 of 45
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Drivers are a *huge* part of modern GPU performance.

    If Intel can only offer an acceptable graphics solution to one Mac at most (the mini), is it really profitable to set up a Mac driver team just for that?



    It just isn't very hard to slam different manufacturers' chips on the same board. Everyone and their cousin in Taiwan can do it. Why not put in yet another nVidia or ATi? In the recent generation, the nVidia GF6200 Turbocache parts have good features and reasonable performance at minimal price. ATi also does pretty well with the Hypermemory parts. The only reason to go cheaper than that, IMO, is if Apple wants to push a new entry model in a pricepoint below mini's current one.
  • Reply 12 of 45
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by smalM

    The integrated graphics core of the Calisto chipset will be faster than most ATI X300 solutions.



    Will be? So an actual shipping unit has not been benchmarked with that result? If not... I would certainly not bet on it being better than what ATi and nVidia are shipping at that point.
  • Reply 13 of 45
    tubgirltubgirl Posts: 177member
    my understanding is that intels integrated graphics chip are fully core image-capable and the dev boxes with these chips seem to be snappy enough from what i've read about it.



    i dont really see why a since-long outdated low budget ati chip (even if its a 'new' outdated chip ) should be any better than intels stuff.
  • Reply 14 of 45
    smalmsmalm Posts: 677member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gon

    I would certainly not bet on it being better than what ATi and nVidia are shipping at that point.



    We are talking of the downside of the market, so it will still be

    nVidia GF6200 Turbocache

    ATI X300 Hypermemory



    Why do you think Apple will not drop a dedicated graphics chip from the Mac mini motherboard, when they can have an integrated graphics core for free that does everything they want a Mac mini to do?

    Obviously Apple already has a driver for the GMA 900 of the i915G chipset, so I don't think they won't be able to make one for Calistoga.



    But perhaps you are right and Apple starts to give us decent graphics performance in it's low end Mac. Everything would be better than that Radeon 9200 on a 64-bit bus
  • Reply 15 of 45
    1337_5l4xx0r1337_5l4xx0r Posts: 1,558member
    tubgirl: Because Graphics acceleration is ATI and Nvidia's bread and butter. Intel merely offers a cheap, bottom of the barrel solution for the super cost-conscious.
  • Reply 16 of 45
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R

    tubgirl: Because Graphics acceleration is ATI and Nvidia's bread and butter. Intel merely offers a cheap, bottom of the barrel solution for the super cost-conscious.



    I concur.



    Sure, maybe intel's integrated nonsense is better than the ATI Rage Pro on the original bondi iMacs, but we're not talking stellar performance here, even with dedicated memory.



    Intel needs to stick to what they know: CPUs.
  • Reply 17 of 45
    skatmanskatman Posts: 609member
    While I will not speculate on the particular implementation in future Intel based Macs, I can tell you that, from my experience, latest generations of integrated Intel graphics (Extereme 2 as part of 855GM/GME and 865G and GMA 900 as part of the 915GP/GM chipsets) are not bad for an average user. My PC laptop with 1.1 GHz ULV Pentium M and Extreme 2 graphics has no problems with any office type multimedia, be it 2 or 3d. I can play GTA Vice City, Raven Shield, Manhunt and other similar titles without a hitch.

    Far Cry is a bit tough on anything other than 640X480, but still playable.

    Autocad runs pretty much as well as my desktop with Ati 9600XT.



    I think that the integrated graphics will suffice for a general purpose office machine.
  • Reply 18 of 45
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R

    tubgirl: Because Graphics acceleration is ATI and Nvidia's bread and butter. Intel merely offers a cheap, bottom of the barrel solution for the super cost-conscious.



    Intel is the biggest graphics chip manufacturer in the world so they know a thing or two about what they're doing. They cater to the low end but they succeed by offering competitive products. People make too much of integrated graphics. If you have a decent amount of RAM it will sure as hell perform better than a Radeon 9200. In 5 hours I might even hunt down a few benchmarks.



    Edit: Kind of hard to compare given the limited number of common benchmarks unfortunately. On OpenGL Intel's integrated chips do even more horribly. I expect that's more drivers than anything. For reference the 9200 is around 20% slower than the 5200. In the end the only place I think they'd ever turn up is the mini though and possibly the eMac, assuming it survives.



    Intel Integrated



    GeForce 5200
  • Reply 19 of 45
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Telomar

    .... I might even hunt down a few benchmarks.



    look forward to it. nice debate going on here

    *sits back, looks forward to more fireworks*
  • Reply 20 of 45
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sunilraman

    [B]i'm sure you know what i'm talking about, and have similar questions, so let's face our Intel Integrated Graphics demons here.





    Jesus christ, they just did integrated for the development $999 rental boxes, probably because they want to make those boxes cheap, and because they don't have full drivers yet for ATI/NV.



    You people are so silly sometimes.
Sign In or Register to comment.