Jump to content

Talk:Intel GMA

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

Misc

[edit]

I know its boring, but Intel's efforts at graphics from the ill fated i740, to the 810/15, should be here also. Timharwoodx 10:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section saying that Intel open sourced it's X11 graphics driver is a bit misleading. More accurately, they added support for the new 965 chips to the existing open-source 'i810' driver in the X.org source tree. Intel graphics products have had open source support for years now, but what is notable about the 965 support is that the release of this chip was a point at which Intel could have easily gone binary-only (as ATI did some years ago). They did have a binary-only driver called the IEGD (Intel Embedded Graphics Driver), but as the name suggests, this driver was not targeted at desktop and laptop end-users. Among other things, it lacked full 3D acceleration support. It was, however, capable of mode setting without the video BIOS (as the 'i810' driver was not) and driving third-party TV encoders. Now, this functionality is now available in open source and being worked on by Intel developers in a branch of the driver's freedesktop.org git tree. I am not aware of the fate of the proprietary driver, but it as far as I know it has no secrets or extra features anymore, or those that it does will soon be in the OSS driver. Simba B 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update the table with Aero?

[edit]

Would be nice to see which chipsets support Aero at a glance. Someone should add a column listing Aero compatibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.116.36 (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added Aero info based on the external link already cited in the article: http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/CS-023621.htm Re GMA 500 - it appears the the chip supports all features required to run Aero, however there is currently no Vista WDDM driver available on Intel's website. It is unclear from Intel's website if such a driver will be provided in the future. Some systems based on this chipset such as the Panisonic Toughbook U1 http://www.panasonic.com/business/toughbook/ultramobile-rugged-computers.asp are advertised as supporting Windows Vista but do not specify Windows Aero support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.138.71 (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your well intentioned change. The table is for hardware features, and as far as I can tell, there is no Aero specific hardware feature. Any mention of Aero, if it is needed at all (I'm not convinced it is), should be in the software sections. Thanks! —Mrand Talk • C 19:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many questions

[edit]

Why does the chart list the X3000 as being able to do OpenGL 2.0? According to the documentation on Intel's site, it does only hardware-accelerated 1.5. Is the 2.0 stuff done in software? If so, we should note this on the chart. --Peter 19:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did every section state the chip was not based on the PowerVR. This implies that some other chip was? Otherwise, why even mention it at all?

Why does the 950 section claim that it supports Shader Model 3, yet the X3000 claims that will be the first to do so?

The 950 only supports SM3.0 in software; you'd never get usable performance figures from it. It'd only really be useful as a tool for developers to test their SM3.0 code on and ensuring that it was bug free. --DaveJB 13:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the 950 section claim that SM3 doubles the 3DMark performance?


These GPU's arent great.

Why does the 950 have a higher peak pixel fill rate if the clocks and pipes are the same as the 900?

I take this one back, I mis-read the numbers. I have updated the page.

Maury 21:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, do you know if the 950's shader support also worked on the 900's then? It's certainly possible Intel wouldn't back port, but given that it was all running on the host CPU, it seems equally possible they could have. Maury 13:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly possible, the 900 and 950 have similar enough cores. I think Intel's concern was that you'd need a dual-core CPU to get useful performance figures from software SM3.0 code (though it would still be nowhere near fast enough for any game), and since there's no way to modify 915G to support a dual-core processor, they just didn't see the point in allowing it to support SM3.0. --DaveJB 13:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh. Got it, thanks! Maury 15:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardware details section

[edit]

Could whoever wrote that section originally please indicate what chips are being talked about? Thank you. Simba B 21:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


-> "The X3000 architecture contrasts strongly with common external GPUs, like those from ATI or nVidia. In these systems the different functions are handled by different types of pipelines; one type to handle T&L or vertex shaders, another for pixel shaders, and ones for texturing"

This statement is no longer accurate, as the new GPUs use dynamic pipelines, capable of either shader or vertex usage as needed. Wozdog 07:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There is some incorrect info in the GMA 950 section:

"The amount of video-decoding hardware has increased; VLD, iDCT, and dual video overlay windows are now handled in hardware"

Those hardware features are not implemented until GMA 3100 using the G33 chipset (at least the VLD and IDCT...not completely sure about the dual video overlay windows). This is shown in reference 20 (http://download.intel.com/products/graphics/intel_graphics_guide.pdf), which, by the way, is really all you need to look at for a complete comparison for all the graphics cores from GMA 950 - X3500. That link should be more prominently displayed, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.177.205.91 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I incorporated the VLD, iDCT changes in the hardware matrix table and added the reference. I didn't touch the text for the GMA 950 yet, since I'm unsure about the dual video overlay as well. Text and table are now inconsistent, but if nobody has a source for the GMA 950 VLD, iDCT capabilities, we should go ahead and delete that sentence.
The document reference you mention is good, but superceeded by http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/quick-reference-guide-to-intel-integrated-graphics and current driver development. That applies at least to OpenGL 2.0 support for X3100 and some hardware video acceleration methods (in the hardware matrix table I favored the more recent reference and if that doesn't apply, I used the intel_graphics_guide.pdf).7obias (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have a very good reason to believe it contains a typo, I agree with you about using the most recent reference. In the same vein, if we could consolidate to using fewer new references for all these numbers, it would be even better, IMO. —Mrand Talk • C 14:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inquirer article

[edit]

That thing (both the link and maybe the reference) needs to go--it is biased (and wrong as the article points out)--and IIRC it was based on a early version of the chip and drivers which probably has no bearing on what is availble on the market now. Objections? If not I'll remove it. Simba B 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, go for it. What is annoying is that Intel makes what appear to be two very different GMA's and refers to them both as the 9000. This is going to lead to continued confusion. Maury 12:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This particular Inquirer article fails the smell test, and has problems to boot. There's just no way the silicon of the X3000 would implement the same funcationality as the 950 in a less performant fashion, it's based on the same design. The Inquirer's MO is to shoot from the hip, and sometimes they just plain miss. Be circumspect in using them as an external source, they're very much in the press world of calling things early, right or wrong, which is fine. But they _rarely_ come back and correct a link that turns out to be dead wrong. This particular one, remove. JoshuaRodman 12:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tense

[edit]

This article is a messy mixture of present and past tense. I don't have the patience to fix it, but everything should be one or the other tense. For instance: "was basic even by contemporary standards, and lacks support" should be either "was basic even by contemporary standards, and lacked support" or "is basic even by contemporary standards, and lacks support". Foobaz·o< 01:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-> We've been trying to make the wiki accurate, but our (Intel) posts keep getting erased. We are only trying to make the info accurate. We'll update it immediately when it changes if you'll allow us to. But don't compare graphics integrated into the memory controller hub to that imbedded on the motherboard. It will only make you look like you don't know much about the technical aspects of integrating computer graphics into a northbridge, while maintaining a good asp on a midrange graphics product.

ATI Xpress 200

[edit]

Under the GMA950 section, why all the comparisons to the ATI XPress 200?

Perhaps it is a baseline comparison 130.15.107.10 16:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tile based rendering vs. deferred rendering/texturing

[edit]

The article claims that "the GMA series uses tile based rendering, which aims to ensure that only pixels that will end up on-screen will flow through the rendering pipeline." However, I think the term hidden surface removal is more appropriate to describe the technique of removing non-visible parts of the scenery. Tile-based rendering just means that the screen is divided into tiles.

PowerVR also uses the term deferred rendering to describe their HSR-before-texturing. Chithanh 00:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Drivers

[edit]

This article is about hardware. If you want to write about drivers, please be specific about which drivers you're on about. There are various drivers for various operating systems. If you don't specify exactly which driver you mean, your contribution is meaningless. TIA. --Harumphy 09:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it would be great to have a reference for people who are looking for driver setup information. For example, it took me a long time and lots of pain to discover that the correct name for the GMA 3000 driver on FreeBSD is actually called "i810", and the chip is called "Q965". All I had to go on was the name "GMA 3000" from my motherboard documentation. It would be handy to have a link to this kind of information all in one place. --TopQuark, 22 July 2007

I have added links about the drivers question (WinXp & Win Vista drivers BTW) --ManoloKosh 20:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any T&L drivers? No. So why list the OS for which no drivers are available ?

  • Are you sure about that? How do you know? Have you reviewed the source code for xorg-video-intel 2.0, which was released two days ago? Besides, there's more to a driver than T&L. And please sign your comments with 4 tildes. --Harumphy 11:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I listed WinXP and Win Vista because are the OS mentioned by Intel in the link

--ManoloKosh 13:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latest driver for the 965 series is 15.7 for Vista, released 11/14/2007 and 14.31.1 for XP, released 9/4/2007 From the version number and date, it looks like Intel may be halting Windows XP driver development for this, or putting it on a lower priority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 10:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Latest 965 driver version is 15.7.3 1/10/2008 for Vista and 14.32.3 12/29/2007 for XP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This release of the Vista driver exhibits even worse geometry and texture rendering errors with the Final version of farbrausch's "Candytron" demo than previous versions. http://www.farbrausch.de/productions.php Earth to Intel, the word is DE-bugging. You're not supposed to make each new driver release WORSE! The same driver on this chipset has no problem with the newer and much more complext demos "Zeitmaschine" and "Theta". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 00:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These problems may be a problem in Vista, I was able to run this demo on a new PC with an ATi HD4200XT (a card which cost more than the laptop with the Intel 965 Express chipset) and it not only had the same geometry errors and checkerboard texture rendering, it either failed to render or flipped the normals of some polygons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 05:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment to say that it is deceiving to see all the support for pixel and vertex shaders (3.0 and better) and opengl 1.5 in the chart, when GLSL is not supported in the Windows drivers. This page is useful as a reference for selecting hardware, but I would not have bought any of these chipsets if I knew GLSL was missing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.246.189.54 (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software support section

[edit]

I've added a new section, so that discussion of drivers can be clearly OS-specific and disentangled from discussion of the hardware. --Harumphy 15:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel GMA and PEG

[edit]

Someone should add if it's possible to use Intels onboard graphics and a PCI Express Graphics Card in parallel.

For G33 its (http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/31696601.pdf): "The GMCH also has the capability to support external graphics accelerators via the PCI Express Graphics (PEG) port but cannot work concurrently with the integrated graphics device."

I do not know for the others.

Is it possible the original post is referring to an ADD2 card? I use one of these in my system. Rather than being restricted to an onboard VGA port, an ADD2 card can theoretically add any other type of port via an Add-in card, in my case, a DVI port. ...teddy 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Menlow

[edit]

Intel's UMPC for 2008 called Menlow will use a GMA that has OpenGL 2.0 but only DirectX 9. I guess this is because the focus is on MIDs that use intel and will be better suited to OpenGL technology. It also has VC1.

This has been fabricated and demonstrated at CES 2007. At the time there were only a couple in existance.

This means the creation of a new GMA not listed here specifically for UMPC in 2008.

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?tid=777324&starttime=0&endtime=0

I would not add this until it is confirmed more than a intel powerpoint slide in chinese.

GMA X3000 and Unified Shaders

[edit]

I think ther is a mistake here. It stakes DX9 and unified shader. We all know that unified shaders need DX10, or shader mdoel 4.0, however this card only supports DX9c and Shader Model 3.0. In the description of X3000 there is no reference to something exsceptional.

Can someone confirm this is a mistake. There is nothing about this in intels whitepaper.

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma3000/gma3000.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icurafu (talk • contribs)

The phrase "unified shader" is used to mean two different things:
  • Under "Hardware: graphics cores: GMA X3000" the article says "... hardware is organized as a unified shader processor consisting of 8 scalar execution units. Each pipeline can process video, vertex, or texture operations."
  • In Windows, the phrase unified shader model refers to the combining of the pixel shader model and the vertex shader model into one thing from DX10 onwards.
So - in one case the phrase refers to the hardware architecture and doesn't relate to any particular API, and the other is a Windows API thing. Maybe the hardware description should be rewritten to change the phrase "unified shader processor" into something less ambiguous. --Harumphy 09:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Some good points. My view is that the item in the table requires a digit or a negative which would make me beleive that the DirectX 10 unified shader is the required value, not the questionable intel documention.

The hardware describes what is needed to allow software to utilise unified shaders. Does this mean that x3000 will get unified shaders in the future once drivers are created to take adventage of the hardware? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icurafu (talk • contribs)

Xbox 360 uses unified shaders but is not DirectX 10 compliant. DirectX 10 is just a MS API. It has nothing to do with whether the hardware manufacturers can make a bunch of ALUs that can process both vertex and pixel shader code. Considering X3000 has only 8 scalar ALUs, a palty sum with which to do all calculations, I wouldn't expect any sort of decent performance in modern games from it. --Swaaye 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


the x3100 has unified shaders and thus also supports OpenGL2.0, should be changed. Markthemac 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mistake on the OpenGL compatibility of all X3100 chipsets. Intel's own documentation state that all X3100 chipsets support only up OpenGL 1.5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.80.3.179 (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video chip stress tests

[edit]

To find out what features a video chip really supports, try the 3D demos from Farb Rausch. http://www.farb-rausch.com/productions.php One of interest is the final version of "Candytron". With the current 15.7 drivers for Vista, the 965 Express not only runs that demo with bad geometry errors in two segments, it also has some texture rendering errors that weren't present in the 15.61 drivers, which just had the geometry errors. (Note that "Candytron" is Farb Rausch's only NSFW demo, if you want to check out the demo.) The older 865 chipset (for which driver development ended in 2005) renders the geometry perfectly, though it can't render some of the effects. The 965 Express runs much more complex and GPU stressing demos like Theta, The Popular Demo and Zeitmaschine 100% correct. No other GPU capable of running "Candytron" that I've run it on has exhibited these geometry and texture errors. (The "party" version of "Candytron" has geometry errors, but they're due to the time pressure of writing the demo during a competition and are thus "built in".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 11:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed references to Macbook/Macbook Air

[edit]

Apple is only one among many manufacturers using GMA-graphics. I can't see why they should be mentioned on this page more than models from Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer etc. And it would make a pointless clutter of it, would it not. This page is about GMAxxx, not about which company use it in which models. So please don't add it again unless you have a really good reason to do so. 222.124.213.19 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)/BigFish 2008-01-17[reply]

Incorrect Info

[edit]

The Sims 2 requires T&L capabilities. I have a GMA 950- which is said to be unable to handle this operation, but I can play the game fine. The Intel specifications say that the GMA 950 can handle this without a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.112.189 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some question with Intel GMA X4500

[edit]

I saw, at Wikipedia's table, the spec that GMA X4500 has clocked at 1066MHz, but i cannot found where to prove the fact. Could you give me the evidence that can prove the fact, please?

(Sorry, I can't speak English exactly.. orz) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.235.190.12 (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


GMA4500 is only OpenGL 2.0 according to the Intel Pages: http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/quick-reference-guide-to-intel-integrated-graphics/ However, all 2.1 rendering tests work in GLview, but a library using only OpenGL 2.1 and higher does not. GLview shows 100% of 2.1 fulfilled and some parts up to 3.1 with the latest driver from Dec2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.96.14.101 (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Khronos Wiki says that DirectX 10 is "funtionally equivalent" to OpenGL 3.2, and yet every page I see on the GMA4500 says that it only supports upto 2.1. Is this not just the fault of the basic drivers? https://www.khronos.org/opengl/wiki/Selecting_a_Shading_Language#Special_considerations Lvivtotoro (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why reviews should remain with their respective GMA sub-section?

[edit]

IMO they must because the reviews provide useful information to readers. An example, the GMA 950 sub-sections reads:

"The maximum core clock is up to 400 MHz (on Intel 945G, 945GC, 945GZ), boosting pixel fill-rate to a theoretical 1600 megapixels/s."

"pixel fill-rate" and "1600 megapixels/s", sounds impressive, but in reality that GMA is obsolete. That's why is said that such information is rather useless, since the average reader can't make sense of such figures. Not only that, the table already deals with the techinical information.

The reviews however inform the readers (such as me) 2 things:

  1. - How useful is the GMA in practice?
  2. - How well does that GMA compare to other GMAs or discrete graphics cards?

I hate being forced to "undo" other editors, I always fell like it's a in your face attitude, but it is not. That "undo" was to maintain the quest to update this article. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the reviews out of the hardware section because they don't make sense there - largely because the hardware is OS-agnostic, whereas the reviews relate exclusively to Windows gaming - just one kind of application on just one OS. It was for that reason that we split out the software/drivers section ages ago into separate Mac/Linux/Windows sections. Logically Windows-specific reviews could go under the software support (Windows) section, but definitely not the hardware section.
It seems that many of the WP contributors who take an interest in graphics hardware are Windows gamers, who don't always appreciate that their interest is a small part of a much wider field. There's more to it than squeezing the last FPS out of MegaDeathQuake City on Vista. :-)--Harumphy (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews are OS-agnostic as well, they are not about Windows or Mac. The reviews are clearly about Intel vs AMD. Never in a million years I thought that the Windows vs Mac war could be a factor here.
The reason why I chose to mention Windows gaming is because I felt that readers can more easily relate to Battlefield 2 than to PCMark05, 3DMark06 or other benchmarks.
All my edits in this article have sought to answer these two questions:
  1. - How good is the GMA in practice?
  2. - How well does that GMA compare to previous GMAs or discrete graphics cards?
In order to answer them we need reviews, the technical information provided by Intel looks wonderful on paper, but what about in practice? I don't care about which OS is used in those reviews.
If you want we could delete mentions to Windows gaming and write about the benchmarks. But IMO the reviews are more important than the technical information.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is your POV. Other readers may have entirely different priorities. For example, the table of cores and chipsets in this article has been cited on the X.Org developers' mailing list. This article is about "Intel GMA". It isn't "Comparison of graphics hardware", so Intel v. AMD isn't what it's about.
You say the reviews are OS-agnostic. That cannot be true because the reviews inevitably depend on the OS drivers as well as the hardware. Thus they are not reviews of the hardware alone, but of the whole hardware/software stack that the application sits on top of.
For a long time the whole structure of the article has carefully avoided conflating hardware and software issues and sought to keep them apart. Your edits have muddled the two things horribly, IMHO.--Harumphy (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat agree with both of your points. First off, I think the fact that the GMA 950 is outdated is pretty obvious from the overall way the article is written and the data contained in it. At the same time, I agree that there seems to be an over-emphasis on numerical specs in the text. And while comparing items is a very natural thing to do, and BRIEFLY summarizing some reviews in articles might improve the readers understanding of the item (by way of comparisons), they aren't without their problems. Reviews are snapshots at that point in time while Wikipedia articles need to be timeless. When the performance continues evolving - sometimes drastically - due to driver improvements (regardless of OS), the information in the review becomes merely a data point and now Wikipedia contains obsolete information. I'm not saying it can't be used - just that it needs to be used for what it is - a piece of historical data. I'd suggest reviewing and comparing this article with the Nvidia and ATI related articles. With as many high performance products as they've each produced, if too much weight were given to specs, reviews, or comparions on either of those, it would overwhelm the articles. —Mrand Talk • C 12:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that I did briefly summarize the reviews, each review has around 5-6 pages. I managed to summarize 3 of such reviews in just 2 paragraphs.
I share your concern in relation to the problem caused by drivers updates to the reviews, so much so that I tried to address that issue by writing a disclaimer of sorts.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem is that the Intel GMA is the only mainstream integrated GPU designed for use with Intel CPUs (Socket 775, Core 2 etc.), whereas AIUI the AMD and nVidia integrated graphics chipsets are designed for use with an AMD CPU (e.g. Athlon/Sempron). So the reviews are not just OS-dependent; it's worse than that. They're CPU+OS dependent.
Furthermore, the outcome of the review depends very much on what the Intel GMA is being compared with. Manufacturers rarely oblige by releasing competing chipsets at the same time and price, so the reviewer will inevitably be comparing the newest offering from Brand A against an older offering from Brand B. Before long, Brand B will have released something else and the review will be obsolete. Such fast-moving topicality is inherently unencyclopaedic.--Harumphy (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is really messed, this article was ABANDONNED when I got here. I own a GMA X-3000, came here looking for info and benchmarks, found nothing so I decided to improve the article.

This is what the article looked like: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Intel_GMA&diff=225061118&oldid=224302480

After spending hours and hours searching Google and editing, this is the thanks my "fellow" editors give me, instead of recognizing my efforts I get beaten down by this neologism crap of "OS-agnostic". Give me a break.
The reviews that I quoted are from The Tech Report, ExtremeTech and by Anandtech. All reputable sources for reviews, now you Harumphy want to disqualify their reviews are totally flawed, you are out of control.
The GeForce 8 Series and the GeForce 7 Series articles are filled with references to benchmarks about PC gaming. NO worries about "OS-agnosticism" there.
Example 1 - GeForce_8400M
" While these cards are not oriented for high-end gaming, the GDDR3-equipped 8400M-GT can handle most modern games at medium settings,[29] and is suitable for occasional gaming."
Example 2 - GeForce_8600M
"The GeForce 8600M is offered in midrange laptops as a mid-range performance solution for enthusiasts who want to watch high-definition content such as Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD movies and play current and some future games with decent settings."
Example 3 - GeForce_7800_GTA
"At the time it was considered the performance/cost champion of video cards."

"inherently unencyclopaedic" my ass

Why don't you take your radical puritanism there to see what happens? Why don't you do that?

Now, I should be improving this article instead of arguing about it here. If you want you may segregate this article's reviews, mind you that nobody else does such an aberration.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 00:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will separate the reviews out as agreed.--Harumphy (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EconomistBR, you may need to take a step back for a second. Everyone appreciates your efforts, but remember that this is a wiki and that we are obligated to investigate achieving consensus. As far as I can tell, your edits aren't being deleted, so I'm not sure where why you are acting as if your work is being thrown away. —Mrand Talk • C 15:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about?
I've been civil all the time, I simply wasn't formal. "My ass" isn't uncivility it is simply casual speaking, like "shit".
Now if I sounded angry, that's another thing. I was angry because I had to bow down and accept Harumphy's demands, and also because my efforts were being underappreciated. But being angry is a natural, human reaction, nothing uncivil about that. Are we forbidden to express emotion on Wikipedia?
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EconomistBR: please read WP:OWN. You say your efforts are being under-appreciated, but you are doing a fair amount of under-appreciating yourself. Unless I've misread the history of this article, you have been contributing to it for a whole week. I have been contributing to it since 2006, and I'm not the only one. And you didn't have to "bow down and accept Harumphy's demands". I stood my ground, you responded with bad-tempered and evasive bluster. In any case, that 'demand' was merely to fit your contribution into the established structure of the article. Not one word of it has been altered in any other way.--Harumphy (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I much rather be accused of under-appreciating your efforts than being accused of being uncivil to you, which I was not.
Now, I did ""bow down and accept Harumphy's demands", since the GeForce articles have a different structure than this one, they don't care about "OS-agnosticism". Instead of standing by the precedent set by the GeForce articles I gave up my defensible position all together, hence the "bowing down".
Still you may look at it and think that my position was totally indefensible, which I think you will but either way you won and I have no resentments and no plans of reverting your changes in the future.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for "my ass": If I wanted to "own" this article, I'd make it say GMA stands for "graphics my ass". --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G45 clock speed is missing

[edit]

Does anybody know the clock speed of the G45?

I have been searching Google for a week now, but no luck.

I also tried the G45 chipset manual and the DG45ID motherboard manual at Intel, but they didn't inform the speed either, which is very odd since the manual of the DG965 SSCK (X-3000) informs the clock speed.

I have run out of ideas of where to look. All I know that such basic info should be really easy to find.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 06:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anandtech mentions 800MHz for the G45 here: http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3417&p=2 But you are right: While the mobile chipset specification is quiete clear about render clocks (see section 13.3 "Host/Memory/Graphics Core Clock Frequencey Support"), the desktop chipset specification document isn't really. It's even inconsistent: e.g. G35 product brief 667MHz render clock, whilst p15 datasheet 400MHz render clock. The G45 datasheet p20 mentions 400MHz as well, which is unlikely. Even worse: Intel doesn't share information about how to read render clock speeds e.g. by GPU-Z: http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/user-community-for-intel-graphics-technology/topic/56443/ 7obias (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Extreme Graphics

[edit]

The i855 Intel Extreme Graphics is missing in Wikipedia, only 740 and GMA.--87.174.115.165 (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "intel317363" :
    • [http://download.intel.com/products/chipsets/G35/317363.pdf Intel G35 Express Chipset Product Brief], Intel, accessed August 22, 2007.
    • [http://download.intel.com:80/products/chipsets/G35/317363.pdf Intel G35 Product Brief]

DumZiBoT (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GMA 500

[edit]

When I looked through the spec sheets for the GMA 500 to add the technical info to the comparison table, there were some things which were not clear. PowerVR certainly hasn't been eager to disclose details either. The result is that I wasn't entirely sure whether I had interpreted the spec correctly in regard to some of the details. I think these figures are right but I hope others can find other sources. In particular, the number of shaders, the max video memory, and some of the details about VC-1 and AVC accel could use a double-check.

The number I posted for the peak bandwidth is the memory bandwidth of the chipset in general; I've noticed that this seems to be the way some of the other GMA chips' bandwidth specs are cited. The trouble is that not all of that bandwidth need really be available to the IGP- for instance, the GMA X4500 is listed in the table as having 12.8 GB/s peak bandwidth, which is the chipset's memory bandwidth; p.296 of the spec sheet cited as the source says that the IGP can use up to 12.6 GB/s of that. I didn't change the figure in the table because if some of the IGPs are listed with the bandwidth they can really use (which may not be available information for some of these) and others are listed with the chipset bandwidth (which is usually easily accessible info) then it would be comparing apples and oranges. Should we keep the chipset figures and add a note that the IGP bandwidth may be marginally lower? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodicus (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found numerous sources that says GMA 500 supports DirectX 10.1, not sure if it's true or not though. This wiki page says it supports 9.0c

OK, but please cite these sources before changing the specs table. Looking [1] gives the same specs as previously in the table: DX9.0c. Alinor (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, section GMA 500 on Linux repeats what says GMA 500 Linux support in System Controller Hub --95.56.123.114 (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GL40

[edit]

The article table shows that GL40 is the only chip in the 4500 family, that doesn't support AVC and VC-1 hardware decoding. It cites an Intel PDF document. I've looked in this document and haven't found anything that supports claim.

Quote from document: "All features supported by the Intel GM45 Express chipset are supported by Intel GL40 Express chipset unless otherwise noted below. Additional features are also listed below."

Another quote: "Unsupported Features • Discrete Graphics using PCI Express Graphics Attach Port • ITPM • Intel VT DMA • Intel TXT • Intel AMT"

Nowhere does it mention that hardware decoding of AVC and VC isn't supported ON GL40. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.144.86.26 (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information on GMA 4700MHD/GL47?

[edit]

Don't see any in the article and I think only a few laptops come with it. --132.170.40.1 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oveclock GMA950 on laptops

[edit]

Is it possible to add the "overclock" to desktop GMA950 clock speeds on the laptops

see http://www.gmabooster.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.207.3 (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dvmt on the 950

[edit]

according to http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm the maximum ram addressable by the hardware is 224 mb, not 256. The entry for the 3000 specifically states that the maximum ram is increased to 256.

(http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/whitepaper/307508.pdf -- the white paper,2.2.4 also lists 224)

(furthermore, from experience, i've a program failing to run which requires 256mb of ram, and dxdiag on my laptop (945g chipset) reports 224mb total memory)

Accordingly, i've edited the 256mb to 224mb.

andy_t_roo 74.242.205.111 (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency GMA X3100

[edit]

In the article on X3100 it says that it supports OpenGL 1.5, but in the chart it says that it supports OpenGL 2.1, which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.253.157 (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new GMA 500 driver linux

[edit]

New GMA500 driver for linux came in intel 2010Q4 package and kernel 2.6.37. Despite some problems with rc versions of drivers, black screens seems to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.229.208.84 (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications, technical terms

[edit]

The specification section links the "modified discrete cosine transform" to VC-1 and AVC. But neither VC-1 nor AVC have anything to do with the MDCT. The MDCT is a special lapped transform that is mainly used for audio coding. The transform used in VC-1 and AVC is a non-lapped, DCT-like transform where the coefficients have been tuned to allow easier fixed-point implementations. 217.87.73.128 (talk) 15:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Hd Graphics can game.

[edit]

Starting at the begining of the Intel Hd graphics with the clarkdale and arrandale they are actually very capable of gaming. Now you in no way should max the settings of it but its basically intel finally coming out with a very capable chip. Which has noticable gotten better to were it fits more in between middle/high end. Now from experence and knowledge on the forums l4d handles the core i3 330m or 350m Hd graphics 4 gigs of ram just fine. L4d2 leaves a minor hit on it for unexplained reasons. However with the latest one on the sandy bridge the gpu is now overly qualifyed. I feel its now hard to look down on intel for having poor gpu performance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1J9jykZz_g Is a good video to see l4d in action. Muruattacks videos which are done with a core i3 350m 4 gigs of ram are also a good indicator of what it can do. Intel finally succeeded in fixing there main fault in the gpu side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.183.155 (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there Linux drivers for PowerVR graphic core (GMA 500 + GMA 600)?

[edit]

PowerVR -> "Intel uses the SGX 535 as its GMA 500 and GMA 600 integrated graphics for their Atom platform"

As far as I am informed, there are only some very crappy Linux drivers for this hardware. The manufacturer himself Imagination Technologies doesn't care for Linux at all. Simply google for linux driver PowerVR or for SGX 535 linux drivers

The Linux drivers by intel are reported to be quite good, but how mature are the drivers for the PowerVR?

GMA 500 progress

[edit]

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1103793 --178.24.163.11 (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chipset generation versions

[edit]

Sometimes you will see intel graphics chipsets referred to in terms of generations. There is a list of which chipsets have which generation in http://lxr.linux.no/linux/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c .

144.32.48.87 (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intel HD Graphics P3000

[edit]

Can someone please add Intel HD Graphics P3000, which are part of the Intel Xeon E3-12x5 processors? This is basically HD Graphics 3000, but uses different drivers that are optimized for workstation applications. I assume the device ID is probably different to prevent you from using the workstation drivers on i5/i7 chips. I tried to edit this in myself, but couldn't figure out the wikicode. Alereon (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Juventas (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Extreme Graphics

[edit]

If I were paranoid I would suspect that Intel has white-washed their past product from our collective memory. The Intel Extreme Graphics parts that preceded the GMA parts had Hardware TnL and often outperformed GMA parts even 2 generations later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.150.182.2 (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ianteraf (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Intel GMA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intel GMA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Intel GMA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cocô

[edit]

Is a cocô 200.142.106.250 (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intel_GMA&oldid=1207722840"