Intel Grafix

[merlocka]

The graphics in the Intel 810 and 815 were based on something very similar to the i740.

The 830M and 845 chipsets have the "Extreme" graphics, which crank things up a bit.

I'm not sure here, but I believe the 740 was single pixel/texel per clock and was clocked at 66MHz (AGP speed)

IIRC the 830/845 adds 32bpp color, multitexture, S3TC, Anisotropic, and a higher clock speed ( likw 200MHz or 166Mhz, not sure).

So, in reality, compared to the i740, the 830/845 is pretty "extreme"...

 

[ASIMOS]

Priit wrote:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I740 was much slower than original TnT, performance-wise it was about the same with Riva128. Look this for example
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Actually Intel 740 was a absolutely superb chip.It launched a quarter after Nvidia Riva 128, it had almost the same speed but it had much better actual rendering quality.If I remember correctly It was the product of a collaboration between Intel technology group and Martin Marietta (Lockheed Martin and Martin Marietta merger?-General Electric blah-blah-blah?)
Actually at the time Lockheed Martin and SGI had some of the most valuable patents in 3D technology and if someone wants to look what the technology of Martin Marietta could do should see the look and feel of the 3D worlds a SEGA MODEL 3 could produce in 1996 in SCUD RACE and latter on DAYTONA 2.In my opinion the quality and the feel of the graphics of these games is unrivaled even by today?s standards (XBOX).
Actually I haven?t seen a game today on XBOX that surpasses 15.000.000 triangles per second.(around 250.000 triangles per frame)
MODEL 3 could do 1.500.000-1.000.000 squares per second or double in triangle figures (3-2 million).
So although that MODEL 3 is 5 or 6 times slower than XBOX in actual polygon numbers
the actual superior lightning and shading algorithms (MODEL 3 games had a much more believable shading and lightning look and feel)
the advanced texturing and memory access (MODEL 3 games had much more detailed textures with a lot more clarity and also memory wasn?t a limitation-games was in ROM)
The actual figure that MODEL 3 gives for polygon numbers is nearly irrespective of size, shape of polygon (Which is a huge benefit) and with all the effect and color and shading and texturing in the Maximum setting the hardware can support.
Of course Intel 740 had nothing in common with model 3 technology.
I am not saying that Model 3 is superior to XBOX just that I prefer MODEL 3 look over XBOX look (washed out color, inferior antialiasing implementation, undetailed textures) in 3d games.

 

[bluemax]

Up until very recently I still had all the promotional material for the Real3D i740 "Starfighter". It did have much, much better rendering quality compared to all others, richer colour than 3Dfx too. But slower than the Riva128 by almost half.

The i845G is much, much, much more than the i740 with a few "tweaks". There are rendering abilities now, that the i740 simply couldn't do at all. And while no speed demon, it IS much faster too.

Great for anyone except FPS people. Mind you, Rayman 3 says right on the box, "will not work with Intel graphics". That'll get people upgrading.

 

[TonyB]

the Intel Extreme Graphics and other onboard video for that matter are not designed to compete with normal AGP video cards. When joe blow buys a computer for his family to "surf" the web and read e-mail, he isnt about to pay $60-90 more for something that can be done already with an onboard video, its simple economics and it'll be like this, when you were a baby, or if you are still a baby, you wanted to buy that really cool thing to play that really cool game, but your momma said hell no and didnt buy it for you because it was more expensive. well the same thing applies here, not all people are hardcore computer users and if they can do without paying $60-90 for something that they can live without then they will not pay for it, its as simple as that. Now im not saying the Intel graphics is great, it sucks, but it gets the job done for really cheap, all you price/performance people who advocate A-EM-DEE systems should agree, heh.

 

[pukemon]

Granted servers, non graphics workstations, and business class desktops don't need fancy graphics, which would explain why intel has such a large market share... but that still doesn't change the fact that "Extreme Graphics" still pretty much blows monkey chunks. Personally, I'd say a Geforce2MX or equivalent is a realistic bare minimum these days for even the simplest applications.

 

[Viper96720]

I got integrated video but don't use it. Even for 2-d it isn't that great. No hardware acceleration so alot of games won't work. Unless you like seeing alot of white stuff.

 

[gururu]

I put together two systems with 845G chipsets; One for me and one for my friend. We both decided to use the onboard graphics. Me, because I was waiting for the 9700, him because he had no money. During that time, I played Warcraft 3, Unreal Tournament, Neverwinter Nights, Battlefield 1942 and Porsche Unleashed. Granted, I had to use conservative settings (800X600, medium settings), but I was actually quite impressed. My buddy is still using the onboard graphics and he is a diehard battlefield 1942 player. Now, my 9700 obviously blows away the onboard graphics, but I was actually surprised with the Intel chipset.