Intel graphics discontent justified?
Discontent with Intel graphics goes back a few years. But the unsealing of 3-year-old e-mail exchanges between Intel and Microsoft reveals something about the present, too.
Intel 915 chipset
(Credit: Intel)First some background. Intel makes integrated graphics silicon--that is, graphics functionality that is built into its chipsets. Performance is not the name of the game for Intel. Delivering power-efficient, adequate graphics that can handle everyday tasks and do basic gaming is the goal. Anything beyond this is left to the high-octane discrete chips from ATI and Nvidia.
"We've always been consistent that high-end gamers should use discrete graphics," said Intel spokesman George Alfs. Intel graphics is also inexpensive and comes virtually free on some PCs.
But Intel graphics silicon is everywhere. It ships in tens of millions of PCs every year. And herein lies the issue. The silicon becomes the lowest common denominator that Microsoft and game developers must write to because it's so ubiquitous.
This is the root of the Intel 915 integrated graphics and the "Vista Capable" controversy. As widely reported, Intel's 915 (which shipped as standard in many PCs) was not up to running Vista's Aero Glass interface (among other features). So, Microsoft dropped this as a requirement.
Reams of material have been released according to this Seattle Times blog documenting the infighting that took place trying to resolve the 915 issue. The documents stem from a lawsuit that alleges Microsoft misled consumers by lowering the requirements so a 915-based PC could be designated as "Vista Capable."
According to an unsealed motion citing e-mail and internal Intel and Microsoft documentation released by U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman, Microsoft objected to an internal Intel link "positioning the 915 GM as optimum for Windows Vista on mobile PCs." The motion states that Microsoft viewed this as "misleading" and "egregious" and that Microsoft asserted that the 915 chipset "should not even be in the list of recommended hardware for Windows Vista" and further opined that the "higher end of the chipset choices" from Nvidia and ATI were more suitable.
But that may not be the whole story. According to an article on Channel Web, Microsoft did not "cave" to Intel and the 915, but rather "it was Microsoft, led by Poole, that initiated that change all on its own." Will Poole at that time was a Microsoft senior vice president.
"We are seriously confused. We believed that 915 is NOT vista ready as it will never have WDDM drivers," according to an e-mail from Intel Vice President Renee James, cited in the Channel Web article. (WDDM stands for Windows Display Driver Model.)
Whatever the case, Intel integrated graphics was so commonplace that it was a big issue.
(For the record, Nvidia had issues with its drivers and Windows Vista too.)
Intel targets graphics
Fast-forward to September of 2006 and the Intel X3000 and X3100 (G965/GM965) graphics. With this silicon, Intel decided it was going to provide a better graphics experience for gaming in particular. The 965 started shipping in September of 2006, but it took Intel nearly a year to write the drivers needed to unlock better performance.
"New drivers for the company's 965GM chipset, found in many notebooks and midrange desktops, still don't deliver the uniform performance increases promised earlier this year, according to testing by CNET Labs," CNET News' Tom Krazit wrote in October 2007.
Intel documentation (here) says that "Intel recently introduced the 15.6 and 14.31 Windows Vista and Windows XP graphics drivers that enables Shader Model 3.0 including support for hardware vertex shader and HW TnL on the Intel G965, GM965, and G35 Express Chipsets."
The document continues: "This capability has shown enhancements in game compatibility as well as game play" and concludes the "Introduction" by saying: "The end result is that Intel is able to deliver the highest possible frame rates by leveraging Intel's world class processors."
Now fast-forward to the present and the MacBook Air. The first version of the MacBook Air was rolled out in a show of great camaraderie with Intel CEO Paul Otellini. Intel silicon all around: not only a special version of the Intel mobile Core 2 Duo was used, but Intel X3100 graphics, too. At that time, Apple CEO Steve Jobs heaped praise on the Core 2 Duo processor.
Then came the MacBook Air update. Intel graphics out, Nvidia 9400M graphics in.
This time Apple stressed the graphics capability of the Air.
Gains and compromises
To reiterate, the issue is not that Intel graphics are horrendous. It's simply that Intel's graphics silicon is so widespread that it becomes an issue for people, for example, who buy a laptop and later decide they want to play games at a certain level or do more high-level graphics.
What do analysts think about the X3100? Jon Peddie says Intel graphics has improved, but he is cautious. (Note that the X3100 has recently been superseded in laptops by the Intel GMA 4500MHD.)
"Whereas it would never be used by a real gamer (of which I like to consider myself) it will allow someone with a tighter budget to have some experience (with gaming on a PC)," Peddie said in response to an e-mail query. Peddie does research and testing of graphics products from Intel, Nvidia, and ATI.
Peddie: "Based on early tests we have run on the X3100, we found it ran all the games we tried, i.e., Spore, Stalker Clear Sky, Crysis, and Far Cry Warhammer, but "mind you we had to use lower resolution than we would normally, and if the game didn't automatically turn off some of the special features, we had to in order to get a descent frame rate."
He continues: "But the fact that it ran at all is I think a major slap on the back for Intel. Turning features off and reducing resolution is a reasonable compromise considering the costs."
But Intel (to state the obvious) is not Nvidia. "Now having said that I also have to say that the Nvidia mGPU 9400 (now used in the MacBook Air) is much more capable and you can run at higher resolutions with more features turned on," Peddie said.
The conclusion. Intel graphics is adequate and probably does more than enough for most users. But the issue will never go away because integrated graphics set itself up as a low-watermark benchmark for competitors (that offer higher-end discrete cards) to surpass. Meanwhile, it forces multimedia and game developers to make their games and applications run in a less-than-stellar way on millions of PC worldwide.
Brooke Crothers has been an editor at large at CNET News, an analyst at IDC Japan, and an editor at The Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, among other endeavors, including co-manager of an after-school math-and-reading center. He writes for the CNET Blog Network and is not a current employee of CNET. Disclosure. 
The problem with them is that most pre-built computers and laptops, even having dual/quad cores, 3/4Gbs of RAM... still use Intel graphics, that bottleneck the rest of the computer.
Really, the whole industry would be better if they just dropped Intel graphics chips and went to SOLELY discrete graphics solutions period.
Ignorance, thy name is Leria.
I do lots of programming that requires multicores yet has nothing to do with gaming or graphics.
More to the point, if a system doesn't have a higher end graphics card it is not meant for gaming.
The GMA4500HD still sucks.
Radeon HD 3200 does much better, in the low end discrete range, still not for gaming.
who put Intel graphics on high end machines (quad cores) to save some money!
I definitely agree with you though that I don't understand why so many vendors refuse to put better graphics on higher end machines. At the very least they should try using AMD 780G chipset, but there are plenty of graphics cards with retail prices under $100 that really dramatically improve performance. A large vendor like HP or Dell would be paying quite a bit less for putting dedicated graphics on the machine, but they won't do it because they want fatter margins. Ironically, while it may thicken the margins it hurts sales more than the additional margin adds to profits. I remember selling computers in retail for a while and I remember that a lot of people wanted to buy a machine that had the capability to play most games, but didn't want to spend well over >$1000 to do it. Virtually ever computer under a $1000 never seemed to include a dedicated video card. Ultimately a lot of these profitable machine sat there and the store didn't order more. Maybe cutting the graphics card made sense to some pointy haired exec, but I think their exclusion of a good video card scared away more customers than the additional profits made up for.
AMD 780G is AMD only and many manufacturers are Intel Loyal
AMD Athlon X2/Phenom X3 with dual Radeon HD 4870 X2's can get pwnful framerates for very little money
Never mind gaming, even modern applications interfaces or heavy flash websites can clog using this poor excuse for silicon and then there are the drivers or the lack of, that can't handle simple things like driving a second display properly. And HD video?(even 720p)...forget about it.
I don't care how much you lower the price or how long the battery will last, if it has a Intel GMA, it is a paperweight to me.
So in short, no matter what people may claim, the complaint remains justified.
What ever happened to "you get what you paid for" consept? If a computer is pre-build and is cheap, that means the performance you're going to get out is it is as well.
Intel created a multi-use chipset that was designed around Windows XP. They "assumed" that the 915 chipset would be "good enough" for Vista. As Vista took shape, it became clear that this video processor would not perform well. Wanting to make more money (and not lose millions from their HP/Dell contracts), Intel had to find a way to get this chipset ceritifed for Vista. Enter Microsoft - since they own the certification process!
So if Intel is raking in the cash from their chipset sales, why would they want to stop and redesign something better? Intel has never had good video - period. Their performance was just barely over acceptable in limited conditions. Frankly, they should just get out of the video business.
At the end of the day, Microsoft should be responsible for their stupidity in caving to Intel, but Intel should hand over the checkbook.
Intel is at fault here just as much as Microsoft.
The explain why my system with Radeon HD 4870X2 (hint hint) gets pwnful framerates while having an Athlon X2 5400+
I think MS needs to exclude support for Intel graphics in all future OSs, unless Intel pays them. Apple has already done so!
What is depressing is that Intel doesn't even have the best integrated graphics. AMD's 780G (integrated Radeon 3200) is quite a bit more powerful. The 780G isn't anything fancy, but it was enough power for casual gaming with decent frame rates on a 19" monitor. Anything larger than that and you really would practically need discrete graphics.
'According to an article on Channel Web, Microsoft did not "cave" to Intel and the 915, but rather "it was icrosoft, led by Poole, that initiated that change all on its own." '
The way i see it, Microsoft created the criterion needed to be "Vista Capable", so if they had not decided to make the 915 chipset "Vista Capable" this would not have been an issue. Eitehr way, ultimately the blame lies with Microsoft for allowing the 915 chipset to be certified as "Vista Capable"
Of course, the intel chipsets are still lousy and should not be used for anything other than an internet appliance.
Look my Voodoo cards were good video cards. My Pentium 133 was a good CPU. Compare it to today's stuff and they suck. See how that works? Yeah, Intel graphics are good. However, compared to almost anything else they suck. That's how the game is played.
This is what MS did with Vista. People complained about it and then instead of fixing it they lied about it and cried about it and denied it. Finally they realized spinning it doesn't help. They'd better get a jump start on Windows 7 and just fix it. Look, I'm saving Intel a lot of time here. Just get over the anger, denial, and all that and just go straight to acceptance. Go fix it.
Look, we know what the deal is. If you want a real gaming card you get a real gaming card. Intel can't spin that. CNET can spin that. If Intel wants to sell real gaming cards then they should just build real gaming cards. It really is just that freaking simple. If they don't want to build real gaming cards then that's fine with me too. However, don't cry about it when everyone says you only provide a low end graphics chip. I can't build a real gaming card either, but I wouldn't whine and cry if everyone says I don't build gaming cards. I'd just be like, well duh! What is so wrong with that? Intel either needs to build a real gaming solution or just say well duh, of course we don't have a real gaming card. There's nothing wrong with that. Just don't claim you are doing something when you are in fact not doing it.
Really, most of the complaints people were making about Vista were unjustified because they were trying to run Vista on CRAPPY HARDWARE. I hate to say that, but after seeing a guy who came in trying to put Vista on a 500Mhz processor with 128MB's of memory and a VERY old graphics chip...... I felt like smacking him.
Give it up. Pointing to paid shills writing as "proof" that Vista doesn't blow chunks is just sad.
Vista is crap, even MS has acknowledged it. If you like it, fine, but let the rest of us live in reality.
I have to disagree with you on this one. I've found that a **lot** of people complaining about Vista haven't used it or have used it so little that they haven't discovered that some of the criticisms that they have for Vista simply aren't true. I've found a lot of people who said xyz didn't have a Vista driver and magically I found it in <5 minutes. There are drivers for the HP LJ5, which is absolutely ancient! Except for some of the older Sound Blaster cards I haven't seen much hardware that anyone would realistically still have that Vista doesn't support.
I am not really sure where you get the idea that Microsoft has admitted Vista is crap. The development of Windows 7 merely proves that Microsoft wants to keep their profits up. Everyone could have called Vista the greatest thing EVER and Microsoft would still be developing Windows 7.
Windows Vista in many respects is a far better OS, but it certainly runs considerably slower on old hardware (>2 years old). Like XP before it, which everyone now thinks is so perfect, Microsoft gets bagged on for every new OS being as slow as a dog. In 5 years people are going to look back and chuckle why people would want to stick with an OS that doesn't even have built in DVD burning capabilities and can't use anything except a FLOPPY DRIVE to install drivers during setup! Considering most computers don't include floppy drives any longer you will find a lot of techs carrying around external floppy drives just for this purpose. A lot of people won't miss that aspect of XP at all.
I don't advocate anyone to upgrade an old machine to Vista. Heck in most cases unless there is a compelling piece of software that you need to run I wouldn't advocate bothering upgrading a machine from Windows 2000 to XP, but except for a few business customers I don't see a lot of need to spurn Vista.
Businesses are biting and consumers are upset. That is the only reason they are rushing Windows 7 out the door. Which so far looks like more lipstick on the Vista pig.
Vista is a pig, Linux and OSX have all the features of Vista(minus the draconian DRM) plus a lot more and can run on far less hardware.
For years MS has relied of Moore's "law" to hide the inefficiencies of their software. The problem is that doubling the number of transistors does not double performance. Performance is not increasing nearly as fast as it used to(too much overhead and complexity in keeping L1 cache's synchronized on multi-core processors, among other problems), but the MS bloat is continuing on. This is nothing new, it is just more obvious now. MS can no longer hide its incompetence behind the hardware.
My point was Microsoft finally eventually admitted those problems and that's why they got a jump start on Windows 7 and 7 is starting to look pretty good because of it. It uses less ram. It's going to have better SSD support. I like the new taskbar design. It'll most likely have better multi-core support and it's ram caching will probably be much better by the time of release. Indexing has already improved and rumor has it that more programs will get organized with the ribbon . Also, even though I probably won't use it, it's supposed to have all the new touch stuff.
The point is MS denied that they had problems with Vista, but only when they finally admitted it to themselves and went back to the workshop on Windows 7 did things finally start getting better. That's exactly what Intel needs to do. They either need to suck it up and go home or go home and make a better product. Whining to me about it in the media that their product doesn't suck isn't going to help anyone.
I'm pretty confident MS has admitted to itself that Vista had problems and I'm pretty sure they're working on fixing what they can to make Windows 7 a better Windows and that's why they've been showing it off. If Vista didn't have ram problems then why did they bother with the demo of running 7 on a netbook? If Vista already did that well then wasn't that a pointless demonstration? If Vista was perfect then why are they reworking UAC in 7 to be less annoying and more effective. Wouldn't that be pointless? I'm not talking about new features here. They're going back and fixing things Vista already has. If MS can admit it then why can't you?
Wrong. Vista is a very good product, and most of the complaints about it were NOT justified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Lerianis. I needed a good laugh today.
Not that I've tried it myself, but I'd put money on the fact that I could get the latest build of Ubuntu running very well on a machine you described (500MHz, 128MB, old integrated graphics) without much fuss. And I wouldn't need to smack anyone around to do it either. No, it won't be a power monster like the machine you and I run, but it would work decently. Fista won't allow that and it's not because it's such a powerful OS. It's because fista is busy baby sitting you, making sure you're following the law as the Bill intends you to. Fista is a pig because it's your master, not your friend. You bought a supercomputer to run an OS that is busy checking the DRM rights to everything you have installed, running WGA so M$ can deny you access to your machine on their whims, running "malicious software removal tools" that can delete any program again at M$'s discretion. None of this helps you to get anything done faster, it's entire goal is to annoy you and slow you down.
Enjoy your slavery. Without walls to entrap you, who needs windows and gates?
>If Vista didn't suck, they would spend 5 years squeezing ever nickel they can from Vista.
Microsoft took 5+ years to release Vista NOT because it was great or even the greatest OS they ever released(Many people considered Windows 2000 a better OS), but because M$ Windows development team was so incompetent that they kept couldn't decide what they wanted to include in Vista.
Furthermore, there isn't a real release date for Windows 7. At this point in the timeline of XP Microsoft had Windows Longhorn (what would become Vista) planned for a release in late '05. We all know how they blew past that deadline. Windows 7 may well not show up until 2011 or 2012. Considering that Windows 7 is still in pre-alpha I wouldn't consider any predicted release date very reliable predictor of the actual date of release.
>Businesses are biting and consumers are upset.
For perspective, businesses didn't adopt XP quickly either and some consumers initially preferred Windows 98 which is considering its' instability is hard to believe now! As recently as a few months ago I saw a small business still using Windows 2000. Most businesses are naturally conservative about upgrading and many didn't move to XP until after SP2 so why is the slow shift to Vista a surprise? One would have to be ignorant of history to really think this is unprecedented. When Vista turns 7 years old I venture to guess we will see the same upbeat view of Vista that we see for XP today. People will wonder why M$ is making Windows X when Vista is "the best." Except for Windows 2000, I can't think of almost ANY M$ OS that didn't prove to be controversial.
>That is the only reason they are rushing Windows 7 out the door.
Rushing? Windows 7 is still in pre-alpha! It is no where near ready to release. You are reading too many rumor mills to think that M$ will get Windows 7 out the door anytime soon. Microsoft is ALWAYS working on the next thing. Before Vista was even done they were already working on Windows 7 and before you say that is evidence of anything you have to remember that M$ was already starting work on Windows Longhorn(AKA Vista) before XP was released.
Re: Dalkorian
>You bought a supercomputer to run an OS that is busy checking the DRM rights to everything you have installed, running WGA so M$ can deny you access to your machine on their whims, running "malicious software removal tools" that can delete any program again at M$'s discretion.
Vista runs fine on stuff I bought 2.5 years ago. If that is a supercomputer than your definition is pretty broad. I am not a fan of DRM, but contrary to the misconceptions the DRM in Vista doesn't prevent you from stealing stuff. There are plenty of programs that circumvent CSS, AACS, and other forms of DRM and Vista doesn't stop the users from pirating. Furthermore, WGA already existed on XP so Vista is no different in this respect. Finally, I am not aware of any example of "malicious software removal tools" deleting any program at M$'s discretion.
It is fine to dislike Vista. I can say OS X and some distros of Linux are worthy rivals, but some of you folks have drank a little too much of the Kool-Aid from the Anti-M$ fanatics. There are plenty of genuine criticisms of M$ to debate, but making up BS just shows you don't know *** you are talking about.
- by jb16ostos December 8, 2008 1:51 AM PST
- Well, this is funny.
- Reply to this comment
-
(30 Comments)Here I am, years after the fact. Super satisfied with my Quad-Core Intel chip, and the core 2 duo on my laptop. But here I am, years later... feeling totally betrayed by the fact that my old laptop cannot get current drivers for Vista. It's not just that Aero doesn't work, it's that the drivers are from 2006, and I can't do diddly squat with those drivers. The next model up is very similar and has drivers from June 2008... though it didn't need a driver update nearly as much as the 915 GM always has.
Intel, you are liable, you will always be liable. I purchase about 3 computers a year, and will boycott Intel until they release a current Vista driver for 915 GM, or at least remove the Vista Ready nonsense from their product description.
I am really ticked, and really surprised that they've chosen to hide and get all "lawsuit-oriented" about it. Microsoft is absolutely not as much to blame. Like I said, maybe there's no Aero, but I should be able to use the same features I can in Windows XP.
I made the mistake of purchasing an X3100 based laptop, thinking for "sure" since years and years have passed that it would have adequate performance on DX 8 games like Warcraft III (it doesn't AT ALL).
Intel graphics are abysmal, I wouldn't boycott them over that alone though... the Vista and GMA 915 fiasco is totally boycottable in my book.
Like I said, this has become an issue for me for the first time in December 2008. I haven't been waiting around for years. But it's simply unprofessional and unacceptable to offer no driver support at all when really they should be releasing Aero support.
I run Ubuntu on this older laptop pretty frequently, and the full gammut of effects is no issue at all on that. Wobbly windows, compiz, you name it... it works just fine for that kind of stuff.
Now Microsoft and Intel... common dudes, release a new version of Aero JUST for GMA 915 ... I'm straight up on that... it is too huge an underhanded thing for you guys to do absolutely nothing about it. Do everything about it! Fix it, do it now! Fix this trivial problem! IT IS AN OUTRAGE!
It is unbeliavable. If you had told me this was going on I would have said, "Nah, not Microsoft. Nah, not Intel... " I am pretty big Vista fanboy... but this this baffles.
(PLEASE DO NOT SHOW ME A VIDEO WHERE YOU LIE TO MY FACE AND SAY THAT IT ISN'T POSSIBLE TO RUN AERO ON 915. GOOD GRIEF! THIS JUST ADDS INSULT TO INJURY!) Compiz is all I really have to say about "can't".