I just thought of this. I wonder if this will help with GPU-accelerated programs such as CAD. Since the CPU can do double-precision, maybe this will lessen the need for the pro-level video cards.

When your GPU is beaten by your CPU, you know its time to rethink your strategy or at the very least hope your customers remain very stupid.

Anyone buying any computer (laptop, desktop or otherwise) with an Intel IGP should not be allowed a credit card.

Epic fail!

hmmm, so the GeForce 8 costs less than an intel core i7 yet is still faster? If I am correct, wouldn't it make much more sense to switch to a new processor architechture similar to the ones GPU's use and ditch x86? Wait, no, that wouldn't be good. HEY MARTY? YES BOB? HOW LONG TILL THE PROGRAM IS DONE RECOMPILING TO WORK ON THAT NEW ARCHITECHURE? I DON"T KNOW BOB. MICROSOFT IS STILL WORKING ON RECOMPILING WINDOWS, SO I DON"T THINK THE BOSS WILL CARE IF IT TAKES MUCH LONGER!! OK MARTY, I'M GOING ON A COFFEE BREAK. HEY BOB, GET ME SOME DONUTS WHILE YOUR OUT!! So yes, everything would need to be recompiled for a new architechure. But still, it's a cool idea to think we have the technology to make ultra-fast processors. Dang, x86 is gettin old.

If ATI and NVIDIA were so great at power consumption, then why do Intel IGP get 2 hours more battery life on a laptop?

All i can see here is Larrabee is coming, and Microsoft is opening the doors for it...

Hello.

I think the biggest story here is that for general computing use (office, browsing, nettops), there may not be a need for a gpu at all. If that brings down price or decreases time between iterations, that I'm all for it. Simplicity is always a good thing.

Microsoft says Intel's DX10-capable integrated graphics hardware managed just 5.2 FPS compared to 7.4 FPS using Core i7-965

This only prove that Intel's IGP is crap and not worth buying or using =(

Simple logic like its better not to have a GPU (Intel IGP) which is much faster than having a GPU (Intel IGP) which makes slowness of everything. Soon Intel boards shipped without an IGP coz its faster that way around and less cost.

According to Microsoft's performance numbers, one of Intel's new Core i7-965 processors can run Crysis at an average of 7.4 FPS at 800x600 with the detail level turned down. In the same test, Microsoft says Intel's DX10-capable integrated graphics hardware managed just 5.2 FPS. A GeForce 8400 GS (which is available for $30 these days) outdid both solutions, though, scoring 33.9 FPS.

I see nothing impressive here at all. 8 frames per second is hardly "playable"--it's pretty much a slide show. Let's not even mention at 800x600 with detail turned "down." Nobody who buys a game like Crysis will be remotely interested in doing this.

This kind of publicity reminds me of the early pre-V1 days of 3d. 5-10 fps was considered by some to be really pushing it--"exciting" even. We seem on some levels to be constantly looking backwards to the "good old days" of software rendering which really weren't "good" at all. Decent 3d gpus set us free of all of that.

I'm glad to see see Microsoft working again on software rendering for 3d, however. Back in the days of software renderers I used to enjoy them because they illustrated so profoundly how much better 3d gpus were for 3d rendering. I expect that the future of software rendering will be much more of the same. Software renderers like this are really going to accelerate the sale of 3d gpus, so I'm all for them.

Wonder how this will compare to AMD fusion? Really sounds like AMD is more on the right track.

I wonder if this will mean that Aero can function without a DirectX9 compliant graphics card. Vista and Windows 7 both run fine on my laptop, but it only has 855GM graphics, so I don't get Aero.

$1,000+ CPU beats a $29 IGP at gaming performance? Okay.

A cheap Athlon X2/Core 2-based Celeron + HD 4670/ Geforce 8500 combo blows both away for under $200.

I can't see how Intel's IGP is fail if you want to get a low-power solution for your mobile office work. My FPS in Office rises by 0,0% even if I had the best laptop gfx card available.

I think some of you underestimate the power of Intel with Larrabee.

They have already demonstrated they could make a chip with 1.01 teraFLOPS in just a 62W power envelop.

They have also bought out Havok, and Project Offset.

For a chart of other processors and the 2400 Pro see

http://tweakers.net/nieuws/57048/windows-7-krijgt-softwarematige-di...

It's in Dutch, but the chart is self explanatory.

I think Intel has bigger plans. I mean their chipsets (without IGP), processors, and now SSDs are pretty much king of the hill.

Intel takes a lot more time working with their developers to see what is needed in their next instruction sets, then worry about graphics.

This software rasterizer is really a great thing and will work well with Larrabee along with Intel's AVX ISA. No more new graphics cards to be "DX11+" compliant, you can just update the software.

This only proves that Intel IGP is the worst of them all.

TRS-80 beats Intel IGP in gaming....

Cool, no more panic when the GPU breaks. At least, that's the biggest plus I see here. As well as accidental flash bricking.

In the same test, Microsoft says Intel's DX10-capable integrated graphics hardware managed just 5.2 FPS. A GeForce 8400 GS (which is available for $30 these days) outdid both solutions, though, scoring 33.9 FPS

Gigabyte's 9400-based integrated-graphics (16 stream-processors, 580MHz clock, 1400MHz shader clock) micro-atx motherboard is now available from Newegg ~ $137and the Asus 9300 version is available for ~ $117. Lots of great features for HTPC constructors. Both boards have HDMI, DVI, VGA (with HTPC support). Asus has DisplayPort, while Gigabyte has IEEE1394 input. Should nicely graphics-handle even the latest interation of WoW - not a fair comparison with Intel, since Intel IGPs (965 etc.) in Vista has lots of hiccups with Wow, random display freezes etc, regardless of driver version. No need for Intel-integrated-graphics prison any more for Core 2 users. Sorry, not available for i7.

And Intel is going to amaze us with the graphics prowess of Larrabee? Really ? When they have never demonstrated any ability to write 3D-capable drivers for any of their graphics offerings? Yep, I can visualize Larrabee performing in a steller way with one of two game demos of the latest games -- until you try to run any legacy games on the same hardware - even very recent legacy games... Buyer Beware !!

intel's answer to Cuda and Stream? its got a really really long way to go. i'd say in the form of 40 cores or more on a die. but there's a better chance of old man governator acting in the next sequel...

1/5th the speed of an 8400GS ... using 4 cores at 3GHz and several dozen watts and a few hundred dollars.

I think it shows (a) software rasterisation is not a viable option, and (b) Intel should be ashamed of their integrated graphics.

I'm not surprised, my grandmother could calculate graphics with an abacus faster than how an intel graphics chip does.

*hugs Quadcore*

I was first!

http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=63117

:)