Slashdot Mirror
Intel Open-Sources Broadwell GPU Driver & Indicates Major Silicon Changes
An anonymous reader writes "Intel shipped open-source Broadwell graphics driver support for Linux this weekend. While building upon the existing Intel Linux GPU driver, the kernel driver changes are significant in size for Broadwell. Code comments from Intel indicate that these processors shipping in 2014 will have "some of the biggest changes we've seen on the execution and memory management side of the GPU" and "dwarf any other silicon iteration during my tenure, and certainly can compete with the likes of the gen3->gen4 changes." Come next year, Intel may now be able to better take on AMD and NVIDIA discrete graphics solutions."
It's not like AMD, nVidia, PowerVR, etc. are standing still Every year brings better graphics, and Intel needs to keep pace.
But since they came late to the game, they have a patent minefield in front of them.
For low and some mid-range stuff, sure. But Intel is never going to be able to get above that so long as nVidia and AMD keep cranking out new components year after year. All Intel should be striving for is decent 4K@60 support, making sure multi-monitor systems don't break, and that compositing works as intended.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
For low and some mid-range stuff, sure. But Intel is never going to be able to get above that so long as nVidia and AMD keep cranking out new components year after year
Personally I love the thought (and so does the market, and manufactures) of getting a more powerful Fanless; Cheap; supported by reliable first party open source developers discreet GPU. That gives me a massive boost over what I am getting over my current APU performance. In reality its only a few specialists (albeit more newsworthy) that really buy into the high end anyway.
Wow. You're spectacularly bad at reading comprehension. ("Spectacularly" means "really, really", and "reading comprehension" means "understanding what you read". "Understanding" means, like, "getting it".)
That's Exactly what Crystal Well (a.k.a. Iris Pro) is 128 MiBytes of very fast RAM with latency about 1/2 that of DRAM.
Nah, if intel can ramp up fast enough in the next couple of years they will reach "good enough" status and software won't demand better for a few years. The average user doesn't have a 4k display (even on steam - which is skewed towards gamers - the most common res on steam is either 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 at the moment).
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Exactly. Just look at what happened to discrete math co-processors, discrete sound cards, discrete network cards, etc. It's only a matter of time. Using the CPU to do stuff in software is always going to be more flexible, as the above poster mentions, it's only a matter of time before the CPU is fast enough that most people aren't willing to pay extra for discrete GPUs. I'm betting on another 1-2 generations before this is the case. Haswell is pretty close for many people already - especially in portables, and portables are out-selling desktops these days.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
There is only one change I'd like to see made sooner rather than later:
Stop using my main memory as a video buffer!!!
The main reason I opt for discrete graphics solutions is not because of the performance of the graphics, but the lack of main memory throughput degradation. I build boxes to compute, not sling graphics.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
For some time now unless you are buying a $30 three generation old CPU intel is as good or often better then AMD in performance per dollar. Doubly so if you're buying to overclock.
That's Exactly what Crystal Well (a.k.a. Iris Pro) is 128 MiBytes of very fast RAM with latency about 1/2 that of DRAM.
In typical 'Intel - because we can.' product differentiation, they've unfortunately gone and made that bit tricky to get: Apparently, only their R-series Haswells, the BGA ones, have the eDRAM on the desktop. On the mobile side, it's reserved for the highest end i7s, I don't know if any of those are LGAs.
I don't doubt that it makes economic sense; but Intel is continuing their annoying policy of deliberately having no ideal low-to-midrange part: If you go for a lower performance CPU, as a price-sensitive buyer would, they simply don't offer a GPU that isn't merely phoning it in. If you buy a screaming expensive model, you get their fastest GPUs, which are OK; but not great (and, with some CPU-heavy exceptions, quite possibly not good enough for the people who buy $500+ i7s.
It probably isn't in their interest; but if they actually were looking to put a nail in the coffin of the low-end discrete GPU market, they'd offer at least one i3 or i5 with full GPU punch.
Discrete math coprocessors are actually the interesting one, because they were integrated, and then un-integrated again. We just re-named them to "GPUs" (that is after all all a GPU is, a very parallel vector maths processor, with a tiny bit of rasterisation hardware tacked onto it). That said, yes I fully expect that integration of GPUs is only going to continue.
I am so sick and tired of crap graphics on LINUX it isn't funny.
A fully open source solution from Intel and perhaps AMD would absolutely destroy Nvidia in the LINUX space.
I like the efforts so far AMD as made, and I applaud them for it, but it took them way too long.
If Intel can come out with a better GPU, MESA would be able to achieve OpenGL 4+ compatibility much faster.
Nividia mostly and to some part AMD has destroyed LINUX's ability to get onto the desktop.
Part of this I think is due to board collusion between Nvidia and Microsoft.
I would be a happy camper if I awakened the next morning and Microsoft and Nvidia's stock was officially DELISTED.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Intel has never been competitive with discrete GPUs from nVidia, AMD.
In doing research on the new Macbook Pros, it sure looked like the performance of the Intel Iris Pro shipping in the Macbook Pro 15" is pretty competitive with the nVidia 650M.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sure, if you ignore either the price or the performance you can imagine your statement to be true.
"His name was James Damore."
You really REALLY need to look at what you are testing.
We are heavy users of OpenGL, and care critically about its performance.
And from that point of view, you are very VeRy wrong.
all current intel GMA implementations (even the super rare super-cache based implementations) are
terribly terrible slow compared even to old 8800gt.
we are talking significantly less than half the performance in many more advanced uses.
Yes, they can flat shade a limited number of polys quite well, and even do a little multitex, but its not
2001 any more.. we expect a little more these days.
Hit them with a few more advanced techniques and they really hit the wall, fast.
Not quite as fast as earlier GMA of course, but certainly not comparible to real hardware.
I wouldn't be surprised if compositing on 4K@60FPS works just fine already, provided the machine has display outputs that support the resolution and refresh rate. 2560x1600 via DisplayPort, for instance, was already available on Core2Duo laptops with 4500MHD graphics (that's... 4 generations before Haswell)...
Looks like even Ivy Bridge's HD4000 supports 4K: http://ultrabooknews.com/2012/10/31/new-intel-hd-3000-and-hd-4000-drivers-support-for-windows-8-4k-ultra-hd-opengl-4-0-and-more/
While I never want to say "never", it will be awhile. The fact is that rendering life-like graphics in real time at 60fps across 8+ million pixels takes a ton of processing power, far more than you can fit onto a small 84W CPU+GPU.
In fairness, everyone likes to compare Intel's GPU that has to fit into the CPU die and use perhaps 15W of power against an AMD or nVidia GPU that can use 150W or more of power. There is just no comparison. Give Intel 150W of power to play with and I'm sure they could do something interesting with it.
I'm sure Intel is deeply disappointed to only have 60% of the GPU market. The board and shareholders must be crying all the way to the bank.
The problem with your line of reasoning is that it's exactly what SGI said in the mid '90s. That other companies were welcome to the low-end commodity GPU market, they'd keep the profitable high end graphical workstation market. Unfortunately for them, the cheaper parts kept improving and gradually passed a lot of people's thresholds for 'good enough'. Intel sells 4 GPUs for every one that nVidia sells and 3 for every one that AMD sells. That gives the a lot of money to spend on R&D.
Another relevant object lesson is FireWire vs USB. FireWire was better by almost every objective measure, except that it was a discrete part that added $1 to the cost of a motherboard, whereas USB came for free with the southbridge chip. For most people, the comparatively slow speed and high CPU usage of USB were still good enough. FireWire was relegated to a niche. FireWire was still faster than USB (in practice, if not on paper), and FireWire 800 was a lot faster, but by then the number of boards shipping with FireWire was small and so it lost on economies of scale and that $1 became closer to $5 for the smaller production runs. No one had to make a choice between FireWire or USB, they chose between USB or FireWire and USB, and for most users the extra cost of adding FireWire wasn't worth it. The same choice is happening today: do you want an Intel GPU, or an Intel GPU and an nVidia GPU? If the former is good enough, then why would you bother with both. In both cases, Intel gets some money for their R&D department to spend on the next generation. nVidia only does if you opt for both.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Having the GPU integrated into the same chip as the CPU is not the same as emulating it.
Having owned both I'd rate the HD3000 below an nVidia 7600GT in practice. It'll really move on older Source stuff but it starts to struggle even on HL2E1 unless you turn off a lot of the shinies. That said, being able to get a playable framerate and reasonably authentic looks out of modern games is a huge leap for laptop performance. I'm really impressed with the new era of laptop components from AMD and Intel alike.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Just to clarify, breaking up the list into $20 segments:
$80...$100 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 3781 with the G3430, and the highest benchmark score for AMD is 4353 with the AMD A8-5600K
$100..$120 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 4399 with the i3-3225, and the highest benchmark score for AMD is 6401 with the FX-6300.
$120..$140 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 4928 with the i3-4130, and the highest benchmark score for AMD is 6609 with the FX-8120.
$140..$160 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 4831 with the i3-3250, and the highest benchmark score for AMD is 8134 with the FX-8320.
$160..$180 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 6202 with the i5-3350P. AMD has no parts in this price segment but still wins using any of the previous 3.
$180..$200 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 7018 with the i5-4570, and the highest benchmark score for AMD is 9082 with the FX-8350
Intel "wins" most of the remaining segments by default like it did the $160..$180 segment, but doesn't surpass the $180..$200 winner in performance until you spend $264.99 on the Xeon E3-1240 V2.
So the facts are that AMD not only continues to win the performance per dollar comparison, they are still completely dominating it. Sure, if you are going to spend $300+ just on a CPU then Intel wont let you down, but it takes someone very bad at math to claim that Intel is even close to competing in the performance per dollar comparison. BOOM! HEADSHOT
"His name was James Damore."
Which benchmark?
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Seriously, I'd LOVE to see intel enable multi-socket for broadwell mobile CPUs. Can you imagine - 2x quad core CPUs, 2x integrated intel graphics (some variant of SLI or similar GPU load sharing). 8 Cores. 16 threads. ~70-90w TDP. You could stick that shit in a laptop - when running on battery just turn off a socket. When running on AC, it would fly.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Of course, you could then look at this benchmark is more indicative of what people actually run: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
$80...$100 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 1,988 with the G3430, and the highest benchmark score for AMD is 1,385 with the AMD A8-5600K
$100..$120 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 1,797 with the i3-3240 (G3430 better buy), and the highest benchmark score for AMD is 1,526 with the FX-4350.
$120..$140 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 1,859 with the i3-3245, and the highest benchmark score for AMD is so far down the list I got bored.
same trend continues in every bracket
Of course, you could then look at this benchmark is more indicative of what people actually run
Word processors, web browsing, etc.. thats what you were thinking about, right?
I prefer to only consider what people actually wait for. You are of course right that most things that people do on a computer are single threaded, but nearly all of those very same things arent waited for by users because computers were more than fast enough for those tasks a decade ago. More performance has little to no benefit at all on those tasks.
and the highest benchmark score for AMD is so far down the list I got bored.
You got bored before looking at the first AMD part in the price range? Really?
"I see your true colors shining through"
(A) dont be a dishonest fuck about even small details (like you "getting bored"), especially obviously so, because nobody will believe the shit you are being honest about when so obviously dishonest elsewhere. We know that you are being a dishonest fuck because you then went on "same trend continues in every bracket" -- really, you all of a sudden werent bored anymore, but amazingly also didnt provide data? Thats twice now that you were being a dishonest fuck.
(B) Calling your data into question, I examined the data you provided in the same sentence about Intel the parts: you are wrong about which $120..$140 Intel part is the best Intel part in that price range for a single threaded score based on the very link you provided. There is at least one faster Intel parts in the price range, but then I "got bored" so there might be more that you missed.
Sloppy sloppy sloppy, and dishonest, dishonest, dishonest. Why should anyone pay attention to you?
P.S: Learn how to use a fucking spreadsheet (cut and paste the whole page, fool) Then you avoid being sloppy, don't need to be dishonest, and don't have to be guessing about brackets that you made assertive statements about but were "too bored" to actually put yourself into a position where you would actually know what you were talking about.
"His name was James Damore."
The HD2000 series from 3 generations ago already beat your 8800GT. The current Iris 5200 sits between a GeForce 9800 and a GeForce 280 in terms of performance.
You sure? Got any benchmark comparisons? I'm honestly curious because the comparisons I've seen don't jive. For example:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html
That page shows the HD 2000 on par with cards like Nvidia FX 5800, or ATI X1400.
HD 3000 is shows around Nvidia 6600 GT, or ATI X1600 PRO.
HD 4000 is shows around Nvidia 6800 GT or 7600 GT, or ATI X800 XT or HD 3650.
The HD 2500, HD 4200, HD 4400, HD 4600, HD 5000, Iris 5100, and Iris 5200 are not listed there.
I know that's not a benchmark, and I was curious, so I looked up some random PassMark G3D scores:
PassMark - G3D Mark
4255 Radeon 7870
4116 GeForce GTX 660
1677 Radeon 5770 (came with mac pro in 2012)
1572 GeForce GT 750M (what's in macbook pro 15" now)
1288 GeForce 640
922 Intel Iris Pro 5200
757 GeForce 8800 GT
718 GeForce 9800 GT
711 Radeon HD 5570
654 GeForce GT 240
632 Radeon HD 2900 PRO
628 Intel Iris 5100
606 GeForce 8800 GTS
599 Intel HD 4600
598 Intel HD 5200
544 Radeon HD 4670
515 Intel HD 5000
490 Intel HD 4400
487 GeForce GT 335M
477 Intel HD 4600
476 Radeon HD 7550M
461 Intel HD 4000
306 Intel HD 3000
216 GeForce 7900 GS
208 Radeon HD 7340
The Iris Pro 5200 looks alright, but it's far from common (the MacBook Pro is the only line I can find with one in a laptop), and I really doubt an HD 2000 is going to compare at all with an 8800GT. The above benchmark isn't the greatest, but it should get the ballpark right.
AMD not only continues to win the performance per dollar comparison
Until 12 months of a higher electric bill have passed. AMD is the new Pentium 4.
Oh look, the dishonest fuck is hiding as anonymous now. Whats the matter, dont like taking credit for being a dishonest fuck?
"His name was James Damore."