Jump to content

Talk:Intel Graphics Technology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 37.252.106.163 (talk) at 09:39, 31 December 2013 (→Pixel clock for inactive connection: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconComputing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

i3-2105

the I3-2105 has HD 3000 graphics too79.230.137.149 (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That processor, and the rest of its series, is already on the chart as "Core i3-21x5". --Juventas (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge, split? - AMD, Nvidia, Intel

Currently we have a unified lists for GPUs from AMD and Nvidia, but for Intel there are two articles: Intel HD Graphics, Intel GMA - but those include descriptions besides the specifications tables.

I suggest combining the two Intel tables into Comparison of Intel graphics processing units and keeping in the current "Intel HD" and "Intel GMA" articles only the descriptions - just like we have for the different Radeon and Geforce families. Ianteraf (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never understood why those comparison articles were grouped that way. They are totally unwieldy with no end in sight. HD Graphics wasn't simply a new name, it was the end of Intel's northbridge-based graphics, and the beginning of processor-based. --Juventas (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't get it - do you agree or disagree with the proposed arrangement?
About "HD Graphics" - actually the first iteration is a "northbridge hidden inside the package along the CPU". Sandy Bridge is the first product, where the CPU and GPU are on the same die, but still the GPU part is "upgrade" of the previous northbridge designs.
Anyway, my point above is that it's better to keep all specification tables in one article, so that evolution can be tracked and current products compared (e.g. Atom GPU and "big" GPU) - just like for Radeon and Geforce. At the same time "Intel GMA" and "Intel HD" will remain as articles describing the features and other details about the products. Ianteraf (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that uniformity is desirable. I disagree that existing or future "Comparison of x graphics" should use the manufacturer for x.
The existing articles are undesirably long, and will likely become even longer (see WP:LENGTH). They could be made shorter, and arranged more logically, by using brand (ie: GeForce, Quadro, Tesla), application (ie: desktop, mobile, workstation), or another arrangement, instead of manufacturer. In the case of Intel, they have a very logical division with GMA and HD Graphics. --Juventas (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that length is an issue in these cases (similar to lists). Dividing the comparison articles along marketing names like Geforce, Quadro, etc. is not useful, because in some cases those are almost (or fully) the same chips and in other cases under the same marketing name (or family) are placed substantially different and unrelated chips. Dividing along mobile/desktop/etc has similar problem - most of those are also highly related (e.g. mobile chips of family 6xxx are low-power binned desktop 6xxx chips - or vice versa). Dividing along "real" architecture origins may be useful, but there will be plenty of editors coming with marketing-viewpoint and arguing to add/remove chips based on marketing instead of architecture. IMHO comparison of specifications (topic of the articles) is more of a technical issue than marketing/naming issue. If everything is kept in the same place readers can do whatever cross-section comparison they want - marketing, technical, etc.
About the Intel case - actually GMA X4500HD is very close predecessor of "HD Graphics" (the northbridge of the initial Core i7/5/etc) and at the same time it's very different from GMA3150. GMA500/600/3600 are totally different and unrelated to any of the others as well.
That are my reasons for proposing that the Intel articles follow the format of AMD/Nvidia articles. Ianteraf (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison of Intel graphics processing units done. Ianteraf (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Intel HD graphics

This isn't an advertisement, but to cite the source I found this from.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00D78PZE8/Toshiba-Satellite-C55-A5245-15-6-Inch-Horizon

It says "Mobile Intel HD graphics" but that isn't listed here?

I'm not sure what it is or what the differences are so yeah that's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User9733 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel clock for inactive connection

The article says: DisplayPort requires only a single pixel clock for all active connections, regardless of how many there are (this is not the case for non-active connections, which would require an extra pixel clock for each connection).
How can an inactive connection require any clocks ? -- Juergen 37.252.106.163 (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intel_Graphics_Technology&oldid=588498567"