Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
AMD Graphics Intel Hardware

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel To Integrate DirectX 11 In Ivy Bridge Chips

Comments Filter:
  • by supersloshy ( 1273442 ) on Monday January 10, 2011 @01:46PM (#34825218)

    What the heck are you babbling about? Do you have the slightest idea?

    I believe he's babbling about this []. Sandy Bridge will have DRM in it (though they don't call it that for some weird reason), and Sandy Bridge is directly related to Ivy Bridge [], so therefore it could possibly inherit the DRM features of Sandy Bridge.

    Disclaimer: I am a total n00b when it comes to discussing processor architectures, so I could be wrong about something.

  • by Surt ( 22457 ) on Monday January 10, 2011 @01:48PM (#34825252) Homepage Journal

    So why not do it generically? IBM Cell chips integrate a Vector chip on the CPU. Intel and AMD both have video chips integrated into the CPU. So why not integrate like the old Altvec of PPC a Vector co-processor.

    Why not use a generic chip designed for that type of instruction set? That way your not limited software versions for your hardware.

    Because sufficiently generic hardware is not sufficiently fast at the desired task, graphics computation. Even with the optimization intel has put into this, they'll be MORE than an order of magnitude of graphics performance behind the dedicated solutions of their competitors.

  • by IYagami ( 136831 ) on Monday January 10, 2011 @01:53PM (#34825300)

    You can find Sandy Bridge GPU benchmarks at []

    "Intel's HD Graphics 3000 makes today's $40-$50 discrete GPUs redundant. The problem there is we've never been happy with $40-$50 discrete GPUs for anything but HTPC use. What I really want to see from Ivy Bridge and beyond is the ability to compete with $70 GPUs. Give us that level of performance and then I'll be happy.

    The HD Graphics 2000 is not as impressive. It's generally faster than what we had with Clarkdale, but it's not exactly moving the industry forward. Intel should just do away with the 6 EU version, or at least give more desktop SKUs the 3000 GPU. The lack of DX11 is acceptable for SNB consumers but it's—again—not moving the industry forward. I believe Intel does want to take graphics seriously, but I need to see more going forward."

    Note: all Sandy Bridge laptop CPU have Intel HD Graphics 3000

  • Re:DirectX who? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Burnhard ( 1031106 ) on Monday January 10, 2011 @02:00PM (#34825390)
    Given that DX is driving innovation in graphics cards at the moment and that GL is playing catch-up, the answer has to be "yes".
  • Re:Other OSes ? (Score:5, Informative)

    by petermgreen ( 876956 ) <.plugwash. .at.> on Monday January 10, 2011 @02:13PM (#34825518) Homepage

    Direct X is a Microsoft product
    Direct X isn't really a product (you can't buy it and never have been able to). DirectX itself is an interfaces supplied by windows for various things gaming related. Most significantly these days 3D graphics.

    These days each version of directx specifies a set of required features. A "DirectX 11 card" means a card that implements all the features required by DirectX 11. In this context it's perfectly reasonble to ask whether those features will be exposed to other operating systems.

  • Re:Other OSes ? (Score:5, Informative)

    by kyz ( 225372 ) on Monday January 10, 2011 @02:15PM (#34825556) Homepage

    Better than that. In OpenGL, you say "give me this vendor-specific feature" you get it. Programmers have used this to get at the latest features of chipsets long before they're standardized.

    OpenGL programmers are always ahead of DirectX, even in this case where the hardware directly targets future DirectX specs.

    It's like using -moz-border-radius, -webkit-border-radius and -khtml-border-radius to get CSS3 rounded borders long before CSS3 is officially released, and yet CSS3 won't be beholden to any one browser's implementation.

  • by DRJlaw ( 946416 ) on Monday January 10, 2011 @04:33PM (#34827700)

    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.

    Do the "rest of us" constantly carp that Nvidia IGP graphics are slow, AMD IGP graphics are slow, and AMD Fusion graphics (will be) slow? Because this is what the GP was referencing. Nobody expects "built in" graphics to be comparable to high end discrete graphics. Performance comparable to the lesser Nvidia and AMD chips, e.g., AMD 5400 series, Nvidia 410 and 420 (possibly 430) series, is not considered slow by anyone except high end gamers. High end gamers buy discrete graphics cards (or specialized notebooks), period. The "rest of us" is broader than that. The "rest of us" includes business users, HTPC users, and casual gamers.

    GP didn't mention gamers. I'm not willing to pay more so that every CPU and/or motherboard is suitable for high end gaming. Your expectations are unrealistic. Good day.

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn