x3000 and much better. Hardware Transform and Lighting, better scaling and deinterlacing etc. Do a search here we have had some decent threads on the X3000 GMA chipset
x3000 and much better. Hardware Transform and Lighting, better scaling and deinterlacing etc. Do a search here we have had some decent threads on the X3000 GMA chipset
but still it uses system ram why can't Intel give some of it own ram like NVIDIA and ATI does on some low end models
The only reason why you need local memory is for fast access to the frame buffers. The faster main memory and the PCI bus gets the less and less we need power hungry GPU with local memory.
I saw a few articles on the Inq saying that the GMA 3000 is actually benchmarking slower than the GMA 950, but since there are only a few G965 motherboards on the market it's hard to be sure if this is really a problem or not.
I saw a few articles on the Inq saying that the GMA 3000 is actually benchmarking slower than the GMA 950, but since there are only a few G965 motherboards on the market it's hard to be sure if this is really a problem or not.
We know, and I'm suspecting they were using pre-release drivers without support for hardware transform and lighting, SM3.0 etc.
x3000 and much better. Hardware Transform and Lighting, better scaling and deinterlacing etc. Do a search here we have had some decent threads on the X3000 GMA chipset
Well....on top of all the improvements.... HDCP compliance is a must have feature.... if not included, then would it be more than another crappy IGM?
Comments
x3000 and much better. Hardware Transform and Lighting, better scaling and deinterlacing etc. Do a search here we have had some decent threads on the X3000 GMA chipset
but still it uses system ram why can't Intel give some of it own ram like NVIDIA and ATI does on some low end models
The only reason why you need local memory is for fast access to the frame buffers. The faster main memory and the PCI bus gets the less and less we need power hungry GPU with local memory.
I saw a few articles on the Inq saying that the GMA 3000 is actually benchmarking slower than the GMA 950, but since there are only a few G965 motherboards on the market it's hard to be sure if this is really a problem or not.
We know, and I'm suspecting they were using pre-release drivers without support for hardware transform and lighting, SM3.0 etc.
I saw a few articles on the Inq saying that the GMA 3000 is actually benchmarking slower than the GMA 950
The GMA 3000 (in the Q965) is a GMA 950 with a few enhancements.
The GMA X3000 (G965) is a complete other GPU based on the Kyro design with all the goodies hmurchison talked about.
x3000 and much better. Hardware Transform and Lighting, better scaling and deinterlacing etc. Do a search here we have had some decent threads on the X3000 GMA chipset
Well....on top of all the improvements.... HDCP compliance is a must have feature.... if not included, then would it be more than another crappy IGM?
The GMA 3000 (in the Q965) is a GMA 950 with a few enhancements.
The GMA X3000 (G965) is a complete other GPU based on the Kyro design with all the goodies hmurchison talked about.
Ugh, that is mo' confusing if true. Wait, this is Intel; that means it has to be true.
The GMA 3000 (in the Q965) is a GMA 950 with a few enhancements.
The GMA X3000 (G965) is a complete other GPU based on the Kyro design with all the goodies hmurchison talked about.
Intel has been using Kyro tile technology since Intel Extreme 2 IGP.