Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 18th May 2007 17:33 UTC, submitted by Michael
Intel "The last time we had looked at the performance of Intel's integrated graphics under Linux with their open-source driver was back in February when testing the GMA 3000 IGP using an Intel DQ965GFEKR motherboard. However, with display drivers constantly improving, we recently carried out some additional Intel Q965 graphics tests along with comparing these numbers to discrete graphics solutions from AMD/ATI and NVIDIA."
Order by: Score:
Is it getting better?
by csasso on Fri 18th May 2007 18:19 UTC
csasso
Member since:
2007-02-27

Hi, I see the numbers on the Intel's GPU are worse than the ATI's and nvidia's. But is there an improvement?

Also, is X 7.3 going to give much better numbers for open source drivers?

Finally, is Intel going to release a better GPU soon?

Thank you!
chris

Reply Score: 2

Radeon is soo slow
by prymitive on Fri 18th May 2007 18:21 UTC
prymitive
Member since:
2006-11-20

Radeon X800 is as slow as Intel integrated graphics with open source driver, this means that AMD better do what they said about opensourcing video drivers or it will takes years until we will have _fast_ and open ones.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Radeon is soo slow
by anda_skoa on Fri 18th May 2007 19:31 UTC in reply to "Radeon is soo slow"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Radeon X800 is as slow as Intel integrated graphics with open source driver


Are you sure you read the linked article?
The ATI card with open source drivers is at least twice as fast as the Intel one in almost all tests.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Radeon is soo slow
by prymitive on Fri 18th May 2007 20:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Radeon is soo slow"
prymitive Member since:
2006-11-20

I would call getting 40% of real performance little slow, ET is q3 engine game but X800XL is getting there 40 fps, this is not that much for a card like this, under windows it gets around 100 fps.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Radeon is soo slow
by anda_skoa on Fri 18th May 2007 20:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Radeon is soo slow"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

I would call getting 40% of real performance little slow


Well, first, in your other posting you are comparing with the Intel performance and as I said it is at least twice as good.

Second, in this test the ATI is driven by the open source driver, not the proprietary one from ATI.

Only had a look at the pretty pictures, right?

Reply Score: 3

Well...
by 1c3d0g on Fri 18th May 2007 19:42 UTC
1c3d0g
Member since:
2005-07-06

ATI has always sucked when it comes to performance under GNU/Linux, this article only further proves this fact. For us hardcore gamers, we'll still have to use NVIDIA GPU's, 'cause nothing else comes even close.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Well...
by JMcCarthy on Fri 18th May 2007 20:34 UTC in reply to "Well..."
JMcCarthy Member since:
2005-08-12

While I agree with what you're saying for other reasons (stability), keep in mind that they were using the third party open source drivers.

I have always wondered if I should go with a faster graphics card with poor open source drivers or a poor graphics card with good open source drivers for my laptop. I think this answers it all.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Well...
by sbergman27 on Fri 18th May 2007 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Well..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
I have always wondered if I should go with a faster graphics card with poor open source drivers or a poor graphics card with good open source drivers for my laptop.
"""

Depending upon your actual *need* for 3D performance, consider who you want to give your money to. ATI doesn't care if the open drivers are poor as long as they can still sell you a card.

If you *need* the extra performance of the ATI... well, get what works for you. We don't have to be martyrs.

But frankly, if I were not going with Intel (which I plan to do on my next purchase) I'd go with an Nvidia. At least there you have open source 2d, and a company that at least treats their users on OSS operating systems as first class citizens.

All this could change if AMD/ATI start *doing* instead of just talking about doing, though.

Take a look at the Intel X3100 chipset in the wikipedia link posted by someone above. It's a mobile chipset and looks quite interesting.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Well...
by biteydog on Sat 19th May 2007 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Well..."
biteydog Member since:
2005-10-06

Sounds right to me - I'll go for Intel on my next laptop (now overdue as my 8yr old laptop is getting bad on the keyboard) for everyday stuff, and stick to NVidia on my graphics (including 3D work with Blender) workstation.

Reply Score: 1

Intel GMA X3000
by vermaden on Fri 18th May 2007 19:46 UTC
vermaden
Member since:
2006-11-18

There is a big diffrence between GMA 3000 and GMA X3000, X3000 has hardware T&L, 3000 does not, they should also test X3000[G965 chipset].

more info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA

Reply Score: 5

RE: Intel GMA X3000
by codergeek42 on Fri 18th May 2007 20:56 UTC in reply to "Intel GMA X3000"
codergeek42 Member since:
2006-01-07

Definitely. The GMA X3000 (G965) has things like hardware-offloaded T&L, pixel and vertex shaders, and floating-point rendering calculations versus the Q965's software-only T&L and shader support can make a huge difference in games that use a lot of particle/debris effects, such as these FPS.

Reply Score: 2

?
by evdjj3j on Fri 18th May 2007 19:48 UTC
evdjj3j
Member since:
2006-01-10

I did not see any tests that compared the performance between various versions of Intel's drivers.

Reply Score: 3

How well does it do Beryl on AIGLX?
by Howie S on Fri 18th May 2007 21:44 UTC
Howie S
Member since:
2005-07-14

I'm looking to buy a new laptop, and I'm thinking of going with intel graphics, but will I get decent beryl performance on aiglx? Isn't there a berylmark tool?

Reply Score: 1

glyj Member since:
2007-04-06

I have an intel based desktop (Asrock conroe945DVI ) and it works very well with Compiz/beryl& also metisse (Mandriva 2007.0 & 2007.1 spring )

regards
glyj

Reply Score: 1

two questions:
by REMF on Fri 18th May 2007 21:59 UTC
REMF
Member since:
2006-02-05

> why test with the crippled Q965 chipset as opposed to the more capable "G" version?
> when is X.org 7.3 actually due out, there is no sign of a release date on their website or mailing lists?

Reply Score: 1

RE: two questions:
by sbergman27 on Sat 19th May 2007 23:49 UTC in reply to "two questions:"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
when is X.org 7.3 actually due out, there is no sign of a release date on their website or mailing lists?
"""

According to this, in May:

http://xorg.freedesktop.org/wiki/Releases/7.3?action=show&redirect=...

Reply Score: 2

ohbrilliance
Member since:
2005-07-07

Two things this review missed

* a comparison of the GMA 3000 running on different versions of the Intel drivers (how much have the drivers improved?)

* a comparison between the GMA 3000 and the 950 (how much has the GPU improved?)

Reply Score: 1