Intel Doubles Down on Visual Computing – Meet Intel Iris Graphics

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I think you guys are going to want to read this blog post detailing Intel's Iris graphics on the upcoming 4th gen Core processors. What makes this post so interesting? The company claims that its new integrated HD graphics will "amaze even the hardcore computer geek." Ahem, I believe that would be you. :cool:

Intel Iris graphics delivers unprecedented visual experiences in modern, ultra small notebook PCs. This new graphics lineup brings more choices to consumers and a range of graphics solutions that are optimized for Ultrabooks™, premium notebooks, and desktop all-in-ones (AIOs). The performance improvements will amaze even the hardcore computer geek.

4th Gen Intel Core processors with Intel Iris Graphics, when compared to 3rd Gen Intel Core processors, deliver significantly more 3D graphics performance2. Customers will see incredible performance gains such as:
  • 2X 3D performance increase over Intel HD Graphics for the high performing U-series processors designed specifically for Ultrabooks, with Intel Iris graphics.
  • 2X 3D performance increase for Mobile H-series processors (designed for more robust notebook PCs) compared to Intel HD Graphics with Intel Iris Pro graphics and High Speed Memory (eDRAM)
  • 3X 3D performance increase for desktop R-series processors with Intel Iris Pro graphics and High Speed Memory (eDRAM)
Intel Iris graphics delivers not only stunning 3D visuals but also provides faster, more advanced video & photo editing and brilliant display capabilities through features like Intel Quick Sync Video technology, MJPEG* acceleration, 4K UltraHD display resolution, collage mode display, OpenCL*, DX11.1*, OpenGL4.1* and DX extensions.
 

buttons

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
2,121
2x the performance of crap is still crap... Even if they get it to a point where you actually get 30fps+ whats to keep it from BSOD every 5 minutes or less (at least thats been my experience with intel graphics + gaming)

I will be impressed when it matches a radeon 7850.
 

014

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
193
I don't want to sound too elitist, but that doesn't hold me back from saying that impressed doesn't always equal good enough. When I see an article like this, I think, "Oh, that'll be nice for the people that find the performance acceptable." Not everyone craves maximum graphic details + speed, and they need not be shamed. Good for them.
 

ir0nw0lf

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
6,404
Can't wait to see the comparisons to the AMD APU graphics. Intel needs a huge step-up to their game in that department.
 

Putz

I have a custom title
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
5,440
so your shiny new 350$ cpu can run bejeweled now, how about something basic like wow or d3 @ 1080p, that would be a start

as said above 2x crap is still crap
 

Azhar

Fixing stupid since 1972
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
18,876
All I read is "blah blah blah blah - we're probably still going to playback at 24Hz - blah blah"
 

joblo37pam

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2002
Messages
2,146
These chips aren't designed to be gaming monsters. They are meant for desktop graphics and video at low power, and they do that well enough. Doubling and tripling performance in one generation is impressive, but when the chips aren't meant to be top of the line, the effect is lost.
 

CreepyUncleGoogle

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
6,871
I'm interested. Discrete graphics cards are pretty wasteful for someone like me who rarely plays a video game, but would like the infrequent dabble with one to run passably well. Intel has been doubling (or more) iGPU performance for a while now and the reviews in the past few years have all said the same thing -- The latest can run modern games at low settings, but it doesn't haave headroom to grow into more demanding tasks over the upcoming year or so. Hopefully this one will be enough, but I suspect the performance types who don't care as much about heat or power will still whine and bellyache over it like little children who fail to understand they're a small minority who game on a PC when everyone else isn't.
 

USMCGrunt

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
3,103
I'm interested. Discrete graphics cards are pretty wasteful for someone like me who rarely plays a video game, but would like the infrequent dabble with one to run passably well. Intel has been doubling (or more) iGPU performance for a while now and the reviews in the past few years have all said the same thing -- The latest can run modern games at low settings, but it doesn't haave headroom to grow into more demanding tasks over the upcoming year or so. Hopefully this one will be enough, but I suspect the performance types who don't care as much about heat or power will still whine and bellyache over it like little children who fail to understand they're a small minority who game on a PC when everyone else isn't.

Do you realize where your posting at? This is a hardware and gaming enthusiast site...
 

Parja

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
12,671
Do you realize where your posting at? This is a hardware and gaming enthusiast site...

Right. And though we don't represent the majority, the argument is particularly relevant given Intel made a statement like this...

The company claims that its new integrated HD graphics will "amaze even the hardcore computer geek."
 

ballistic90

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
3,308
I thought that, even though Intel HD video wasn't too bad, that the real problem is that their video cards don't support even half of the graphical effects that are in new games. It sounds like Intel still doesn't understand that at all.
 

c3141hf

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,708
Do you realize where your posting at? This is a hardware and gaming enthusiast site...

Do you realize that you don't have to play games to be a hardware enthusiast?

The Intel HD 3000 in my laptop works fine. For gaming, I have a desktop. For my laptop, the HD 3000 offers significantly better battery life and has the added benefit of not relying on non-free graphics drivers.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
21,626
It's nice that Intel IGP's are finally getting to the performance level of being able to run cutting edge games like GTA3:VC, HL2, and Far Cry at 720p with medium settings.


:p

In all seriousness though, this is a huge leap forward for Intel. Especially in the laptop realm where someone like me uses a laptop for the casual playing of older games since that's what my HD4000 is only capable of handling. When the mobile processor arrives that will allow me to play still somewhat demanding games (on an Intel IGP) like Batman:AC or heck even Fallout:NV with my full LCD res and maxed out settings at playable framerates (40-60+), is when I will be a happy camper.
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Messages
837
It's not an enthusiast's GPU, but better performance is certainly welcome. It's also better for those people that have to make due with something while they wait for their new graphics card to be shipped :D
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,999
I'll be happy if it is just able to accurately produce a 23.976hz video output at 1080p and 720p...
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,616
I think it's cool. An ultrabook that can do light gaming with real games (not just Facebook). That's not too bad. I wouldn't mind gaming on a small laptop while traveling. It's not going to be a gaming machine, of course, and I wouldn't have the expectations that it would be.

It's not built for the hardcore gamer or to replace the NVIDIA/AMD mid to high end video cards. It's meant to be an entry level, onboard video. People are bitching that Intel graphics suck hard core, yet when they improve them, they get the same response. They are better than they were, and they aren't half bad for embedded graphics. If you require more horsepower - buy it.
 

wonderfield

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,396
Intel's shooting for the highest-spec parts (the ones with eDRAM) to trade blows with a GT 650M. Naturally, that isn't anywhere near GTX 680 territory, nor is it as good on the graphics side as what AMD has today, but it's not half-bad.

Am I "amazed"? Yeah, I kind of am. Look how far Intel's come in so little time. If you want to play typical X360/PS3 ports at a decent level of performance with much-better-than-X360/PS3 image quality, you aren't going to have to spend money on a dGPU. That's...kind of amazing (for an Intel chip).
 

Parja

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
12,671
If you want to play typical X360/PS3 ports at a decent level of performance with much-better-than-X360/PS3 image quality, you aren't going to have to spend money on a dGPU. That's...kind of amazing (for an Intel chip).

Except, from what I'm seeing, they're really not very close to that yet. Twice the performance of Intel HD graphics isn't going to get you that.
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,838
Good for them.

I guess doubling iGPU performance is still hard, even though CPUs aren't getting any faster.
 

wonderfield

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,396
Except, from what I'm seeing, they're really not very close to that yet. Twice the performance of Intel HD graphics isn't going to get you that.
You do understand what resolution and with what IQ features X360/PS3 games tend to run with, correct?
 

mrcamper

n00b
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
47
I have heard this crapola from Intel so many times it hurts.... I'll believe it when HardOCP posts their tests and in the conlusion it states 'woo'

:p
 

CreepyUncleGoogle

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
6,871
Except, from what I'm seeing, they're really not very close to that yet. Twice the performance of Intel HD graphics isn't going to get you that.

There are a lot of variables involved in equating Intel's iGPUs with a console, but the HD 4000 is generally reputed to be faster than the GPU in the Xbox 360. Given the age of current generation console technology, this shouldn't be a surprise. I vaguely recall rumblings that the HD 3000 was also as fast as the 360/PS3.
 

Chunder

Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
519
Hopefully these Ultrabooks won't suck as much anymore in the graphics department. Its ridiculous we need to pay hundreds extra to get a Ultrabook equipped with a $50 AMD/Nvidia card.
 

Xilikon

[H]ard|DCer of the Year 2008
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
14,964
Sound like a throw back at SGI with that naming.
 

10e

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
3,383
Wow a $300.00 chip will be able to match an 8 year old previous-gen console. Great job Intel.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,999
I have to admit, my fear is that Intel being successful in this arena will kill the high end gaming GPU.

The likes of Nvidia use the volume of low end parts to - in part - pay fro the development of their high end parts. (Essentially, one general architecture, R&D costs spread over high end and low end).

If Nvidia can no longer sell low end GPU's, then the architecture will ahve to be developed solely for high end parts, which will either make them ridiculously expensive, or just not possible at all.

Sure Nvidia has their ARM business and whatnot, but I don't know if that arch is similar enough to reap many of the co-development benefits they have between the current high and low end. They will be able to spread it over Tesla and Quadro GPU's, but those volumes are nowhere near the high volume low end consumer parts.

AMD will still have their APU's to spread their general arch over, so they will still be around, but we all know what happens when you don't have competition. If Nvidia drops out of high end GPU's, AMD will be the only game in town, and development will likely stagnate.

We may be looking at the demise of high end PC gaming as we know it.
 

c3141hf

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,708
There are a lot of variables involved in equating Intel's iGPUs with a console, but the HD 4000 is generally reputed to be faster than the GPU in the Xbox 360. Given the age of current generation console technology, this shouldn't be a surprise. I vaguely recall rumblings that the HD 3000 was also as fast as the 360/PS3.

The HD 3000 is roughly equivalent to a Geforce Go 6800 in terms of fillrate (MPs and MTs) and memory bandwidth.
 

jstnomega

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 4, 2001
Messages
1,706
Can't wait to see the comparisons to the AMD APU graphics. Intel needs a huge step-up to their game in that department.

Cuz I'm too stoopid to understand these things, some questions.

re AMD's recent announcement of HSA/hUMA implementation in next gen APU's:

Is such micro-architecture patent agnostic, free to all comers who wish to so design their chips?

If that is not the case, does the most recent 2009 AMD/Intel cross-licensing agreement allow Intel free access to such AMD tech?

Intel, on the other hand, now has access to patents of ATI, graphics business unit of AMD.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...D_s_Partners_Welcome_New_Pact_with_Intel.html

Would the adoption of such tech provide Intel significant integrated graphics boost?
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
lol @ some of the comments above. Every time iGPU threads are posted, a faction always complains about it not being fast enough (plus other silly nonsense).

People who need or want something much faster than low end gaming graphics will likely buy one of more discrete GPU cards, or a laptop with discrete graphics.

A large majority of computer buyers don't want or need anything faster than low end GPUs, and this works out great for consumers. This trend hurts discrete GPU makers though.
 
Top