|
How is a GPU with no shader support anything other than useless? Even the ancient integrated GPU in my parents' computer can do shaders well enough to have Aero Glass turned on in Windows and run the handfull of old games they play. Even the GPU in my iPhone can do shaders.
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2010 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:54 |
|
|
Alereon posted:The GPU in Sandy Bridge has shader support, it's fully DirectX10 compliant, hence why it can run modern games with decent support, they just made everything that COULD be fixed-function, to reduce power usage and complexity. Here's the page of the Anandtech article with details. It actually comes very close to executing DirectX10 API instructions directly, which is an interesting approach. Kind of annoying then that the article you quoted says the hardware is fixed-function only when they actually just meant no GPGPU support but still supports DirectX/OpenGL shaders.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2010 17:13
|
|
|
Alereon posted:The point is that everything that could be fixed-function is fixed-function, but it still has the bare minimum of programmable functionality (the Execution Units). Yes, I realize that now. I was just referring to your own quote in the OP, where it says no programmability, and thought that meant no sharer support. Still kind of lame for Intel to gimp the GPU so as to not threaten their CPU business.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
Unfortunately there are a lot of businesses with no plans whatsoever to upgrade beyond XP in the immediate future.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2010 05:36
|
|
|
japtor posted:It'll give Apple an integrated iX chip solution that'll fit within their board space on their low end, and won't be horribly slow vs Nvidia's IGP that they're using now w/C2Ds (sounds like it's faster?). one problem with this is that apple is pretty big on opencl. the 9400M in my mac mini can at least run GPGPU stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2010 07:11
|
|