I am shocked at how bad the built-in video is for Intel's SandyBridge (and Ivy Bridge?) chipsets

  • Thread starter Thread starter RayLopez99
  • Start date Start date
R

RayLopez99

Multicore, i5 machine, lots of RAM, 32 bit, and with the Sandy Bridge videocard (that is, the built in video card in the quad core uP) it will not open a complex but not unduly so Autocad file. My ThinkPad laptop which has some sort of videocard and on a less fast uP renders the AutoCad file fine.. I will add an external cheap card to the i5 and it should work, but I wonder why Intel even bothers with integrated video chips, and why the Ivy Bridge got such hype. I doubt it's much better than SandyBridge. Why botherwhen a $75 video card is better than anything Intel puts on their chip? Iguess so that Intel can sell to corporations that are so cash strapped they cannot afford a cheap $75 video card on their corporate cubicle boxes. Sad if that's true--you can be so much more productive with decent hardware.

RL
 
RayLopez99 said:
Multicore, i5 machine, lots of RAM, 32 bit, and with the Sandy Bridge
video card (that is, the built in video card in the quad core uP) it will
not open a complex but not unduly so Autocad file. My ThinkPad laptop
which has some sort of videocard and on a less fast uP renders the
AutoCad file fine. I will add an external cheap card to the i5 and
it should work, but I wonder why Intel even bothers with integrated
video chips, and why the Ivy Bridge got such hype. I doubt it's much
better than SandyBridge. Why bother when a $75 video card is better
than anything Intel puts on their chip? I guess so that Intel can
sell to corporations that are so cash strapped they cannot afford a
cheap $75 video card on their corporate cubicle boxes. Sad if that's
true--you can be so much more productive with decent hardware.

RL
Click to expand...

How many office workers do Autocad ? :-)

Microsoft Word doesn't need much GPU. Excel doesn't need much GPU.

The HD3000 is about 5 times better than a chip Intel previously
made, but compared to real video cards, has a long way to go.

If you made it as powerful as a real video card, it would
crank out heat like a real video card. And think how
big the cooler would have to be.

Paul
 
Multicore, i5 machine, lots of RAM, 32 bit, and with the Sandy Bridge video card (that is, the built in video card in the quad core uP) it will not open a complex but not unduly so Autocad file. My ThinkPad laptop which has some sort of videocard and on a less fast uP renders the AutoCad file fine. I will add an external cheap card to the i5 and it should work, but I wonder why Intel even bothers with integrated video chips, and why the Ivy Bridge got such hype. I doubt it's much better than SandyBridge. Why bother when a $75 video card is better than anything Intel puts on their chip? I guess so that Intel can sell to corporations that are so cash strapped they cannot afford a cheap $75 video card on their corporate cubicle boxes. Sad if that's true--you can be so much more productive with decent hardware.

RL
Click to expand...

Forgot the exact percentages, but it's way way up there -- nobody,
effectively, buys videoboards anymore if 90% or such being sold are
integrated already. Out of those same percentages I wonder how much
more staggering are the gamer numbers in proportion to those actually
using one. For $75 these days you might swing a few years back for
around a third or quarter benchmark placement to core performers in
realistic game industry demands, upwards of at least twice the
outlay;- then again, what's that leave for the bulk or some modicum
running preponderately entertainment renditions at something less than
1080P. . .by utilization standards, again less overall by a third to
quarter more, than where you're situated, for a rebated Radeon 5450.
Sapphire has one for $20 until the 15th, as a matter of fact, if you
don't mind pushing 200-degree components at a difference commiserate
for covering an entry gamer keyboard along with the order.
 
Back
Top