[citation][nom]Murray B[/nom]Only a fanboy would attack someone personally for expressing a technical opinion about a computer part. My knowledge comes from reading publshed technical data but since that is often written in 'computerese' it is hard for many lay people to comprehend. There is no doubt, however, that some integrated CPU/GPU solutions will load the CPU more than others when it comes to performing graphics oriented tasks.This is made abundantly clear in a non-technical way from the review posted at
http://mymediaexperience.com/intel [...] -graphics/ Note that the CPU loading for playing a High Definition video is about 7% for the Nvidia solution but rises to 25% on the same machine while using the HD 3000. This is in complete agreement with my interpretation of the technical literature.There is nothing wrong with using the CPU to drive the GPU but to avoid costly mistakes it is important to understand that real world performance will generally be be less than some graphics benchmark results indicate.By the way, online debates like this often remind me of the old saying, "A little learning is a dangerous thing".[/citation]
You are making an incorrect assumption based on a completely different product having an issue with a single benchmark which is most likely simply a driver issue.
I didn't attack you for a differing opinion, I accused you of making false claims because that is what you did. You claimed that these integrated graphics processors are emulated despite the fact that modern CPUs simply do not have enough performance to emulate even low end modern GPUs. There in fact is something wrong with using the CPU to drive the GPU because the CPU can not do this. Furthermore, that benchmark was not even a gaming benchmark, so not only is it of a completely different product, but it's not even of a situation relevant to your assumption. Basically, your assumption is made on a collection of data that is all completely unrelated and does not work together.
Also, I'm not speaking as someone ignorant of it, I speak as a professional in the GPU field. The integrated GPUs do not perform well because they are very small compared to high end discrete GPUs and they use the CPU's memory instead of having their own much higher speed memory connection. There isn't any CPU to GPU emulation going on, at least not with AMD's APUs. I can not speak with certainty about Intel's IGPs, but I can say that chances are that their HD 3000 GPU simply didn't have proper support for that task. Again, Intel's HD 3000 GPU is an extremely different piece of hardware from AMD's GPUs and it has very different drivers with inferior instruction set support and inferior support for many other features.
I was not attacking you; I was attacking your incorrect claims. I am not a fanboy of any of the companies and even if I was, any bias would have no impact on what I said. Integrated GPUs (at last from AMD) are quite literally smaller versions of some of their discrete GPUs. For example, Llano has a GPU based off of the Redwood core from some low end Radeon 5000 cards and is almost identical to that of the Radeon 5550 except with a die shrink IIRC. Trinity has a GPU that is basically one fourth of a Cayman XT from the Radeon 6900 series, yet again with a die shrink. Again, they don't perform well because they are very small GPUs with very limited memory performance.