Print 16 comment(s) - last by dgingeri.. on Apr 4 at 3:49 PM

Intel injects some growth hormones into its GMA IGP

Intel's fourth generation GMA graphics core will soon be upon us. G965 is a part of the Broadwater series of chipsets and is due to be released during this quarter. The integrated G965 chipset will be aimed at entry-level and mid-level PCs backing Intel's Viiv initiative.

The graphics core will be a huge step up in performance from current GMA900/GM950 graphics cores currently in circulation, but will will likely still not touch integrated offerings from ATI and NVIDIA. That being said, increased graphics performance is not the only thing being brought to the table with G965:

Intel’s G965 integrated chipset will feature “Intel Clear Video Technology,” which provides improved 3D multimedia capabilities including DirectX9, Shader Model 3.0, OpenGL 1.5, Advanced De-interlacing, MPEG-2 hardware acceleration and HDMI (high definition multimedia interface) output, the sources said. The G965 series also supports WMV9B high-definition video streams and the ProcAmp API, the sources added.

Our EIC, Kristopher Kubicki, was back in Taiwan last week getting some of the details on the new core logic.  Apparently, all G965 shipments were originally delayed in order to assure the core would achieve Vista certification on all levels.  However, with Vista delayed until next year, the push for DirectX10 support and H.264 acceleration fell to the back burner. 

Even now, Intel is still the largest graphics manufacturer -- even if it is all integrated chipsets.  We will have a lot more on G965 in the next few weeks. 

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Pumped up?
By AdamsJabbar on 4/3/2006 3:27:11 PM , Rating: 3
It is pretty bad when "pumped up" from it's current generation is still a vastly inferior product. The fact Intel is the leading graphics manufacturer is part of the reason so many current PCs are going to have difficulty with Vista. If they're GPU wasn't so poorly performing, we wouldn't have nearly the problem we're going to have.

RE: Pumped up?
By Westfale on 4/3/2006 3:32:03 PM , Rating: 2
buy a graphics card- problem solved :)

RE: Pumped up?
By AdamsJabbar on 4/3/2006 3:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you haven't seen the number of modern yet very low end Dell systems that do not include an AGP or PCI Express graphics slot. I'm pretty sure a PCI graphics adapter isn't exactly going to cut it either.

RE: Pumped up?
By Homerboy on 4/3/2006 3:59:32 PM , Rating: 2
and 99% of those machines are used in places of business where a 4MB video card would more than suffice. Honestly, this "beefed up" video makes no sense to me. Their IGP is for business purposes. Trying to make something Vist friendly maybe? Even on the lowest rung.

RE: Pumped up?
By Googer on 4/4/2006 1:33:29 AM , Rating: 2
and 99% of those machines are used in places of business where a 4MB video card would more than suffice. Honestly, this "beefed up" video makes no sense to me.

Resolutions higher than 800x600 in 32bit colour need more than 8MB. With 1920 x 1080 soon becoming the standard in display resolution, 32MB is about the amount of video ram needed for a 2D display; Dual Head 1920 x 1080 displays will reqire double that.

RE: Pumped up?
By Phynaz on 4/4/2006 10:04:54 AM , Rating: 2
1920 x 1080 standard in business? Not going to happen. Ever.

BTW, 1920 x 1080 requres 6MB of RAM, not 32.

RE: Pumped up?
By dgingeri on 4/4/2006 3:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
um, when I got my first computer, a 486sx 25MHz, I had to upgrade the video card (an ISA video card) to a wopping 1MB to get 1024X768 in 8 bit color. The basic 2d display functions don't need very much. what you are talking about here is 3d functions and textures, which most don't need. the way to check how much memory you need is to first designate what color depth you need, then divide that by 8 to get the number of bytes per pixel. then you find out how many pixels and multiply that by the colo depth figure. so 1024X768X4=3145728 bytes of memory. a 4MB video card would work just fine for that, or 4MB of shared memory. The res we run here at work only requires 5242880 bytes, or just under 6MB, so we use 8MB of shared memory for our 865 based machines.

The biggest problem we have seen with the beta Vista is that the special interface enhancements won't work. ok, so we won't have 3D windows, nobody here cares.

RE: Pumped up?
By kelmon on 4/4/2006 5:31:12 AM , Rating: 2
I have one of those systems on my desk and I don't use it because of the time it takes to redraw the screen, which, I presume, is due to the graphics card/chipset as the rest of the specifications are OK. These days I work on an old PowerBook with an Remote Desktop Connection to the PC and its performance is about the same as if I was interacting directly with the PC itself (that's not to say that the performance is good, just that native performance is rubbish). An improvement in the performance of these chipsets can only be a good thing and should be welcomed. Mind you, integrated graphics from ATI or nVidia would still be preferable...

RE: Pumped up?
By AdamsJabbar on 4/3/06, Rating: 0
RE: Pumped up?
By dearedhead on 4/3/2006 7:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
No current video card is considered Windows Vista "Ready" as no video card on the market currently supports DX10. I personally feel much better purchasing this integrated solution and upgrading when DX10 hardware becomes available, than purchasing a $600 or $700 card now and have to toss it to enjoy all the new visualizations in Vista.

Just a thought.

RE: Pumped up?
By TomZ on 4/3/2006 8:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, current-generation graphics cards from ATI and nVIDIA will (and already do) support Vista. Why would DX10 require different hardware?

RE: Pumped up?
By phatboye on 4/3/2006 7:44:37 PM , Rating: 2
Intel chipsets do a good enough job of processing video for simple task. Intel is not in the business to make a video card aimed at gamers so why would you compare a intergraded chipset gpu to gpu aimed at gamers.

RE: Pumped up?
By TomZ on 4/3/2006 8:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
Integrated graphics are for the majority of computers that are sold into businesses and homes that are not used for games and/or high-end multimedia. Intel graphics have been very successful in this market. Why would any business pay for high-end graphics for someone to run Outlook and Word on it all day long?

RE: Pumped up?
By Googer on 4/4/2006 1:47:11 AM , Rating: 2
A high end graphics card will run HD video much better than one using Intel GMA intergrated graphics.

RE: Pumped up?
By Visual on 4/4/2006 3:08:04 AM , Rating: 2
how high-end the card is has no effect on playing a 2D video - all that is needed is hardware decoding ability for the codec used. if you have a strong CPU (like, any of the dualcores) you can even go with an ancient Trident videocard (or four, to support the resolution :p)

Hooray for laptops!
By UNCjigga on 4/4/2006 3:03:57 AM , Rating: 2
With the bulk of notebook manufacturers switching to Intel graphics for their Core-based solutions, I'd be happy to see this lil' gopher become the default for notebook graphics. SM3.0 and video acceleration are good features to have, aside from slow 3D for games.

"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki