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."

Comments

also includes DRM ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:also includes DRM ?

[supersloshy]

What the heck are you babbling about? Do you have the slightest idea?

I believe he's babbling about this. Sandy Bridge will have DRM in it (though they don't call it that for some weird reason), and Sandy Bridge is directly related to Ivy Bridge, so therefore it could possibly inherit the DRM features of Sandy Bridge.

Disclaimer: I am a total n00b when it comes to discussing processor architectures, so I could be wrong about something.

Re:also includes DRM ?

[julesh]

So what? If you don't like closed content, just don't use it!

Widespread deployment of systems that allow closed content are likely to encourage content providers who are releasing content using current unprotected or insecure systems to switch to a more secure closed system. This reduces the utility of open source software, which almost universally is unable to take advantage of this kind of system due to protection measures that typically require signed trusted code. Hence, it is something that should be discouraged.

That said, boycotting closed media is likely to be just as effective as boycotting hardware that supports it; probably more so, as it is somewhat more direct.

Other OSes ?

[SirGeek]

Will Intel provide documentation so that other OSes will be able to make use of this feature ?

Re:Other OSes ?

[petermgreen]

Direct X is a Microsoft product
Direct X isn't really a product (you can't buy it and never have been able to). DirectX itself is an interfaces supplied by windows for various things gaming related. Most significantly these days 3D graphics.

These days each version of directx specifies a set of required features. A "DirectX 11 card" means a card that implements all the features required by DirectX 11. In this context it's perfectly reasonble to ask whether those features will be exposed to other operating systems.

Re:Other OSes ?

[kyz]

Better than that. In OpenGL, you say "give me this vendor-specific feature" you get it. Programmers have used this to get at the latest features of chipsets long before they're standardized.

OpenGL programmers are always ahead of DirectX, even in this case where the hardware directly targets future DirectX specs.

It's like using -moz-border-radius, -webkit-border-radius and -khtml-border-radius to get CSS3 rounded borders long before CSS3 is officially released, and yet CSS3 won't be beholden to any one browser's implementation.

DirectX

[Anonymous Coward]

Goes to 11!

(I'm sorry)

Great!

[TechyImmigrant]

Those new texture mapping algorithms will really make outlook load fast.

But will it improve Minecraft's graphics?

[digitaldc]

That's what I am worried about, I want my Minecraft landscapes to be rendered better.

Re:Hard-wired DirectX?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hard-wired DirectX?

[Surt]

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.

Intel integrated graphics at anandtech.com

[IYagami]

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

Re:DirectX who?

[Burnhard]

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".

Re:Intel integrated graphics

[0123456]

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.

Re:RISC please

[the linux geek]

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.