Intel To Integrate DirectX 11 In Ivy Bridge Chips 199
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."
also includes DRM ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Intel integrated graphics (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd rather they made their integrated graphics fast than simply support new DirectX capabilities. I don't really see the point of supporting certain features if the whole thing is going to be slow. I suppose it's easier to implement something than it is to implement it well.
Re:Hard-wired DirectX? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Other OSes ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Almost certainly. They want to sell hardware, and being a full generation or more behind their competitors, have no reason to hold back any secrets of their implementation.
Re:Other OSes ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. Assuming someone writes the driver. DX11 is a bit ahead of OGL in hardware requirements/capabilities, so full support for dx11 means it has everything OGL needs also.
Re:Intel integrated graphics (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather they made their integrated graphics fast than simply support new DirectX capabilities. I don't really see the point of supporting certain features if the whole thing is going to be slow. I suppose it's easier to implement something than it is to implement it well.
Have you seen performance numbers for Sandy Bridge's on chip graphics? The "Intel graphics are slow" meme is dead. Sandy Bridge's integrated gpu beats most discrete graphics cards under $50. The Ivy Bridge solution will be even faster.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/11 [anandtech.com]
Re:also includes DRM ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Intel integrated graphics (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.