View Full Version : Intel v boards

08-04-2003, 04:53 AM

Heck, Intel is starting to take it's part in market with OGL 1.3, I hate'em so much http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/mad.gif (because of this)

08-04-2003, 05:05 AM
Intel i845G/i865G are replacing the old i815e, and you think this is bad... why?

The 845G can be beaten into actually performing reasonably, seeing as it's usually coupled with a 2 GHz Pentium IV or more, and DDR memory (except for the Dell Dimension 2300 -- SDR with shared graphics won't ever work well...)

Also, Intel drivers are reasonable, and they are being actively developed. That's more than what appears to happen for certain other brands of boards and integrated solutions.

Read me right: I'd be extatic if the hardware compatibility and performance tuning job for a PC was as easy as for a console. But, because it isn't, I'd rather have Intel than some of the less well supported chip sets any day of the week.

08-04-2003, 10:08 AM
Arent we on OGL 1.4 soon to be 1.5?

08-04-2003, 02:15 PM
Arent we on OGL 1.4 soon to be 1.5?

Yes, but would you rather Intel not support GL at all? Some support is better than none.

08-04-2003, 07:08 PM
Yes im just saying if there going to put it in why not put in the latest?

08-04-2003, 09:44 PM
The "5G" products are cheap, low-cost products that make up the "value" one-third of the market (or, rather, more like from the 10% percentile to the 45% percentile :-)

It's an order of magnitude difference in transistors needed (and thus engineering, etc) to put a top-of-the-line accelerator in an integrated chip set, versus "just" a DirectX 8 part (sans hardware transform). Further, because these are integrated parts, they're fed out of the same DDR memory as the main CPU; they're already starved; trying to put more stuff in there just doesn't make sense, as it would just cause more starvation.

Personally, I'm glad the 845G has four texture units, and that drivers are being maintained. But I said that already. Yes, I would LOVE for those things to have basic hardware transform, but they don't. They DO have a large part of the current market, however.

08-05-2003, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by nukem:
Yes im just saying if there going to put it in why not put in the latest?

There isn`t much of a difference between 1.3 and 1.4

Having 1.3 drivers is impressive enough... well sort of.

First run some stuff on it, and see if it craps out or not.

PS: Market share doesn`t mean much. Plenty of people are just web surfers/mp3 dowloaders. I wouldn`t aim for those guys, jwatte http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

08-05-2003, 10:33 AM
Market share doesn`t mean much.

What it means is that a developer can expect to have some kind of hardware-based rasterization avaliable. After a while, given sufficient market share, normal applications can start using 3D objects as easily as 2D.

Not that I consider this a good thing, mind you.

08-05-2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Korval:
Not that I consider this a good thing, mind you.
OT :
Why? The windowing system has been around for more than 2 decades now. Maybe user interface could evolve a little bit now that 3D acceleration is more and more widespread. Ok, having 3D buttons is no big deal, but there are more interesting approaches than merely adding eye candy and special effects to the traditional GUI paradigm (wow! context menu fades in instead of appearing suddenly... that's innovation man!).
Never wanted to manipulate data like Tom Cruise does in Minority Report?