By: Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com), December 14, 2012 5:33 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
EduardoS (no.delete@this.spam.com) on December 13, 2012 10:38 pm wrote:
> Mark Roulo (nothanks.delete@this.xxx.com) on December 13, 2012 9:11 am wrote:
> > So maybe we only get ~30% GPU improvement ... which means that we don't
> > need a story about the iGPU not getting killed by memory bandwidth.
>
> And still far behind AMD.
>
> I was hoping for Haswell to finally have decent graphics performance
You mean, decent 3D performance? But who needs it?
Even SandyBridge (P3000) GPU 3D performance is an overkill for all, but a tiny fraction of users. P4000 is bigger overkill. Haswell would be horrible overkill.
I really don't see a point in "decent" 3D performance. Either you have "good" performance, i.e. enough to play all, but the most demanding 3D games, or do enough of 3D to support the heaviest GUI stuff and don't spend chip area and power budget on anything above that.
The 1st goal is clearly unattainable for mass market IGPs due to current packaging limitation (memory bandwidth).
So, IMHO, the best for us, [desktop] customers, would be if Intel was doing the 2nd, i.e. Clarkdale level of 3D performance or even slightly less than Clarkdale at close to zero power cost and small area cost.
> but likely it still not the case.
>
> Mark Roulo (nothanks.delete@this.xxx.com) on December 13, 2012 9:11 am wrote:
> > So maybe we only get ~30% GPU improvement ... which means that we don't
> > need a story about the iGPU not getting killed by memory bandwidth.
>
> And still far behind AMD.
>
> I was hoping for Haswell to finally have decent graphics performance
You mean, decent 3D performance? But who needs it?
Even SandyBridge (P3000) GPU 3D performance is an overkill for all, but a tiny fraction of users. P4000 is bigger overkill. Haswell would be horrible overkill.
I really don't see a point in "decent" 3D performance. Either you have "good" performance, i.e. enough to play all, but the most demanding 3D games, or do enough of 3D to support the heaviest GUI stuff and don't spend chip area and power budget on anything above that.
The 1st goal is clearly unattainable for mass market IGPs due to current packaging limitation (memory bandwidth).
So, IMHO, the best for us, [desktop] customers, would be if Intel was doing the 2nd, i.e. Clarkdale level of 3D performance or even slightly less than Clarkdale at close to zero power cost and small area cost.
> but likely it still not the case.
>
