Intel: Sandy Bridge doesn't have DirectX 11, but Ivy Bridge will

[Emil]

Intel's new 32nm Sandy Bridge processors may feature integrated graphics, but users will have to wait until Ivy Bridge, which will be manufactured using a 22nm process, if they want DirectX 11. Current Sandy Bridge chips only support DirectX 10.1.

Read the whole story

 

[Guest]

Why in the world would you want to use an integrated graphics if you ant to play using this Sandy Bridge cpu.

By the time they will integrate DX 11.. we'll say hello to.. DX 12.

 

[fpsgamerJR62]

DirectX 11 and DirectX 10.1 graphics support is largely a moot point with regard to integrated graphics. Whatever GPU capabilities that are present in Sandy Bridge and Fusion, they are more suited to entry-level gaming and playing games from a generation or two ago rather than taking on top-tier DirectX 11 titles. For that task, using one or more high-end discrete graphics cards is highly recommended.

 

[Guest]

DirectX 11 and DirectX 10.1 graphics support is largely a moot point with regard to integrated graphics. Whatever GPU capabilities that are present in Sandy Bridge and Fusion, they are more suited to entry-level gaming and playing games from a generation or two ago rather than taking on top-tier DirectX 11 titles. For that task, using one or more high-end discrete graphics cards is highly recommended.

Well said!

 

[Guest]

Whats the point of worrying about DX11 not being in Sandybridge???...

The intergrated GPU's simply are not powerful enough to be of any use whatsoever in DX11 gaming...

 

[Vrmithrax]

Guest said:
Whats the point of worrying about DX11 not being in Sandybridge???...

The intergrated GPU's simply are not powerful enough to be of any use whatsoever in DX11 gaming...

They are trying to dull one of the selling points of the AMD Fusion series against the Sandy Bridge APUs. AMD will (and already has) come out firing, showing off their fully integrated DX11 support. It's all about marketing, and AMD comes out looking like they are the more advanced product, since they already have DX11 incorporated. In marketing, there is a simple axiom: "Doesn't matter if it really matters, only matters if it sounds like it matters." We buy products all the time that have cool little bells and whistles that, in reality, never get used. Perception is king.

 

[captaincranky]

...."Doesn't matter if it really matters, only matters if it sounds like it matters." We buy products all the time that have cool little bells and whistles that, in reality, never get used. Perception is king.

Indeed! It actually goes a bit beyond that as well. Repetition is a primary form of propaganda. So that after a while, people will believe that DX-11 is needed even for a netbook or a home theater. And since nobody likes to be told what their machine can't do, DX-11 will then be mandatory.

Although, there are so many gamers here that understand this, it gives one pause to wonder why we even bother to mention it , over and over.

"Well, integrated graphics won't play the top tier games, even with DX-11"! No kidding, really?

I have my personal expectations about SB's IGP blunted to more reasonable levels. Here's how that stacks up. I'm hoping that I would be able to run my TV, at full 1080p, along with a standard monitor of the same resolution, without the computer blowing up warnings, about damaging the onboard graphics, and insisting that I run dual screens @ nothing more than the equivalent of 720p.

If the on chip graphics do that, I would think that would be considered a rousing success.

Well, I suppose that nobody's asked if Sandy Bridge's IPG will run "Crysis" yet, and that's a step forward on the path to enlightenment.

 

[princeton]

Doesn't matter. DX11 or not AMD hasn't been able to keep up with intel for over 5 years.

 

[dividebyzero]

I have my personal expectations about SB's IGP blunted to more reasonable levels. Here's how that stacks up. I'm hoping that I would be able to run my TV, at full 1080p, along with a standard monitor of the same resolution, without the computer blowing up warnings, about damaging the onboard graphics, and insisting that I run dual screens @ nothing more than the equivalent of 720p.
If the on chip graphics do that, I would think that would be considered a rousing success.

Both versions (HD 2000 / 3000 ) can run dual screens @ 1980x1080p.
For workstation mode there wouldn't be too much, if any, problems with setting up a dual display. The HD2000/3000 graphics seems to also work very well in the HTPC space (see Anands very good article here) -not without some caveats of course (although the principle one could be addressed with the introduction of the Z68 chipset in a few months time).

 

[Guest]

Probably a couple of basic questions, but.... There is nothing keeping you from installing a GPU that supports DirectX11 is there? And if you do install a dedicated GPU, would it be possible and would there be any advantage to using both outputs. In my use one monitor seldom if ever displays anything that would require Direct X 11 but the other one does.

 

[captaincranky]

Probably a couple of basic questions, but.... There is nothing keeping you from installing a GPU that supports DirectX11 is there? And if you do install a dedicated GPU, would it be possible and would there be any advantage to using both outputs. In my use one monitor seldom if ever displays anything that would require Direct X 11 but the other one does.

I've tried to use onboard graphics, (Intel G31) with a video card in place. It did work. However, both the IGP and the add in card were being controlled by the Nvidia driver. Not what anybody would consider ideal.

So, worth experimenting with, but certainly no guarantee of success.

(I think that was the question you asked).

 

[Guest]

hp has p5680 but somehow disallows adding a nvidia or ati 512 mb cards to i5-2300. It works ok with i5-2400. My question is what is the limitation in the i5-2300 that conflicts with dedicated Graphics cards?