Slashdot Mirror
Intel To Integrate DirectX 11 In Ivy Bridge Chips
angry tapir writes "Intel will integrate DirectX 11 graphics technology in its next generation of laptop and desktop chips based on the Ivy Bridge architecture, a company executive revealed at CES. AMD has already implemented DirectX 11 in its Fusion low-power chips. Intel expects to start shipping Ivy Bridge chips with DirectX 11 support to PC makers late this year. Ivy Bridge will succeed the recently announced Core i3, i5, and i7 chips, which are based on Intel's Sandy Bridge microarchitecture."
does it still contain the DRM restrictions capability ?,
because Intel can forget all about CPU sales from us and from any of our customers until its removed
i dont care if it promises a free pony
contains DRM==No sale
period
Will Intel provide documentation so that other OSes will be able to make use of this feature ?
UPS Sucks
Goes to 11!
(I'm sorry)
1. Will this in any way benefit OpenGL?
2. Will this hinder future versions of DirectX or are they backwards compatible in a way that there would be large chunks in hardware and new changes made as firmware revisions or software implementations?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Those new texture mapping algorithms will really make outlook load fast.
Evil people are out to get you.
That's what I am worried about, I want my Minecraft landscapes to be rendered better.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Worse what happens when directX 12 comes along? is the hardware useless? can the hardware be upgraded?
1) The same thing that happens when you install DirectX 10 on a DX9 card: the DX9 subset of DX10 is hardware accelerated, the DX10 parts are run in software.
2) No. It's not useless. It will still accelerate everything it was accelerating before.
3) Probably not. But who cares? Either replace it, or live with a subset of current functionality.
So why not do it generically? IBM Cell chips integrate a Vector chip on the CPU. Intel and AMD both have video chips integrated into the CPU. So why not integrate like the old Altvec of PPC a Vector co-processor.
Why not use a generic chip designed for that type of instruction set? That way your not limited software versions for your hardware.
Because sufficiently generic hardware is not sufficiently fast at the desired task, graphics computation. Even with the optimization intel has put into this, they'll be MORE than an order of magnitude of graphics performance behind the dedicated solutions of their competitors.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
You can find Sandy Bridge GPU benchmarks at http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/11
"Intel's HD Graphics 3000 makes today's $40-$50 discrete GPUs redundant. The problem there is we've never been happy with $40-$50 discrete GPUs for anything but HTPC use. What I really want to see from Ivy Bridge and beyond is the ability to compete with $70 GPUs. Give us that level of performance and then I'll be happy.
The HD Graphics 2000 is not as impressive. It's generally faster than what we had with Clarkdale, but it's not exactly moving the industry forward. Intel should just do away with the 6 EU version, or at least give more desktop SKUs the 3000 GPU. The lack of DX11 is acceptable for SNB consumers but it's—again—not moving the industry forward. I believe Intel does want to take graphics seriously, but I need to see more going forward."
Note: all Sandy Bridge laptop CPU have Intel HD Graphics 3000
I'd rather they made their integrated graphics fast than simply support new DirectX capabilities. I don't really see the point of supporting certain features if the whole thing is going to be slow. I suppose it's easier to implement something than it is to implement it well.
Have you seen performance numbers for Sandy Bridge's on chip graphics? The "Intel graphics are slow" meme is dead. Sandy Bridge's integrated gpu beats most discrete graphics cards under $50. The Ivy Bridge solution will be even faster.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/11
"Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
Given that DX is driving innovation in graphics cards at the moment and that GL is playing catch-up, the answer has to be "yes".
The "Intel graphics are slow" meme is dead.
For anyone who likes their games to run at 30fps at 1024x768 with low graphics settings. The rest of us find that kind of slow actually.
Why? What RISC architecture provides the same price/power/performance ratio that x86 provides?
POWER is fast and has an excellent power/performance, but entry-level systems cost ~$3500 after discounts.
Itanium is fast, but expensive and power-hungry.
MIPS is fast and power-efficient, but none of the players in the high-performance MIPS market have any interest in anything but network processors.
SPARC gives you two options - SPARC64 (slow, expensive, power-inefficient) and SPARC T-series (fast, but only for throughput-driven workloads; expensive; fairly power-hungry)
ARM has good power and price characteristics, but is slow compared to any production x86 chip except the Atoms and ULV stuff.
Basically, I'm not seeing a credible alternative to x86 for the market that it thrives in. If you want to pay up and get a nice fast RISC system, they're out there; alternatively, if you want a somewhat slower one for cheap, ARM is always available.
Do the "rest of us" constantly carp that Nvidia IGP graphics are slow, AMD IGP graphics are slow, and AMD Fusion graphics (will be) slow? Because this is what the GP was referencing. Nobody expects "built in" graphics to be comparable to high end discrete graphics. Performance comparable to the lesser Nvidia and AMD chips, e.g., AMD 5400 series, Nvidia 410 and 420 (possibly 430) series, is not considered slow by anyone except high end gamers. High end gamers buy discrete graphics cards (or specialized notebooks), period. The "rest of us" is broader than that. The "rest of us" includes business users, HTPC users, and casual gamers.
GP didn't mention gamers. I'm not willing to pay more so that every CPU and/or motherboard is suitable for high end gaming. Your expectations are unrealistic. Good day.