4 ms·
performance wise the hd4000 is actually nowhere near as fast as what's in the 360 or ps3. the intel chips run a lot of stuff in software very very slowly. for
by tacticus 14y ago
performance wise the hd4000 is actually nowhere near as fast as what's in the 360 or ps3. the intel chips run a lot of stuff in software very very slowly.
for example tf2 a rather non complex game can barely run 1280720 on minimal settings with a hd4000 (<20fps) yet the ati x1950 that i used to own (1ish gen better than the xbox controller from memory) was able to do it in medium quality and 19201080 and significantly more than 60 fps
- ajross 14y agoApples and Oranges. That X1950 card may be 5 years older than Ivy Bridge, but it's sitting on a DRAM bus with almost twice the bandwidth as the CPU. I suspect it actually will have trouble keeping up with the Intel GPU in shader compute power, but for "non complex games" you're probably fill limited anyway. Basically you're measuring DRAM with your test. DRAM hasn't changed much over the last decade, and that extra circuit board with all those chips is still a big advantage for some tasks. But consoles don't have external GPU buses either (sort of, the XBox has some kind of specialized framebuffer-only bus I think).