Talk:List of Intel graphics processing units

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M1 removed[edit]

Removed the link to the Apple M1. It was added by anonymous 203.59.209.185 and I suspect it was trolling or partisan advertising. The M1 is a SOC for an unrelated platform and very little do with GPU solutions compatible for x86 or PCIE. If we should mention the M1 then we should also mention the BCM2711 from the Raspberry Pi which is a lot closer to open standards than the M1. Crass Spektakel (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HD 4400 is AT LEAST two different products[edit]

See: https://communities.intel.com/thread/55542

Plenty of intel sources linked in that thread.

It appears there is a GT1.5 with 12 EUs which is used for desktop haswells with HD4400.

God knows what the HD4200 is, then.

Should be monitored and wiki page updated when/if intel confirms/denies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.120.104.138 (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Categorizing by GPU Generations[edit]

Currently AMD and Nvidia GPU lists are categorized by generations, but Intel GPUs are categorized by some not exactly clean marketing names (GMA, GMA X, HD).

I suggest categorizing GPUs by generations, because Intel has clean official generations from gen1 to gen7 as described here. (All GPU falls into exactly one generation.) PowerVR based graphics would stay in a separated category --City-busz (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made this change. --City-busz (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say Intel has "clean official generations", but in all of Intel's documentation, I've never seen them referred to this way. The link you posted is one person's presentation at a Linux convention. Can you show me something published by Intel that uses these specific generation groupings? --Juventas (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The official Linux driver uses these generations: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel/tree/src/intel_module.c#n54 --City-busz (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way Lakeport and Bearlake are each divided is very odd (amoung other things). The source says copyright Intel, so I'll go with it. Good work. --Juventas (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use "GenX" instead of "Xth Generation?" Most of Intel's documentations use "GenX." --59.115.74.174 (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the table, i5-7200U is 9th generation, but the sticker on my laptop says 7th while the logs report i5-7200U. Altogether, it is very confusing. (Not necessarily the page's confusion, but something somewhere is confused.) --86.5.88.131 (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 7200U is a 7th gen CPU which contains a 9th gen GPU. Intel GPU gens are not the same from those of the CPU. Tuxayo (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

linux support[edit]

OpenGL: 3 or not 3? Homer Landskirty (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this edit seems to b a little bit funny... because: 1. intel still has patent issues on linux... 2. mesa 9 is not really available... 3. most distros dont offer mesa's opengl3 support due to their patent issue related fear... 4. the intellinux driver has such a bad reputation that some apps (e. g. secondlife) dont even try to use opengl3 even if it is there... 5. not even features that dont have legal problems work on my box (e. g. xvmc or vdpau)... :-) i think it should b reverted... thx. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that, because:
  1. Even if there are panent issues, the Intel driver has official support for OpenGL 3.[1]
  2. Mesa 9.0 is just released with OpenGL 3.1 support.[2]
  3. E.g. Arch Linux's mesa package is built with floating point textures support.[3]
  4. Intel supports the driver officially, so if there are bugs, they will be fixed some time.
  5. XvMC and VDPAU are not related to OpenGL.--City-busz (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
uhm...
  1. that (intellinuxgraphics.org) is no official intel site (i just chatted with intel tech support)...
  2. so somewhen in the future... but today most real world linux production boxes dont/cant have it...
  3. Arch is just one distributon of many... ubuntu plus arch is just 2/many... why should it b wrong to write, that linux doesnt support it, when most distros in fact dont do it...
  4. nope - not true - there is not even legal support, although it would b just a piece of paper... and maybe some additional patent fees...
  5. intellinuxgraphics effort regarding XvMC shows how much intel cares for linux support: they just dont...
ergo: if someone wants to use intel grafix, he/she is not properly informed by WP (maybe some would buy an AMD APU instead of an i7, although that i7 is sooooo fast...)... :-) --Homer Landskirty (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can add Gentoo as well. If it works on one Linux, it works on ALL Linux. Maybe some distros don't spoon feed binaries to users as quickly as others, but that is merely an inconvenience. Krushia (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. legal issues... i. e.: it might b illegal to use that non-patent-free code... esp. in the US... 2. furthermore the quality of that implementation is questionable... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional non-comment Sorry folks, but I don't understand the nature of this RFC. It seems to be a question of matters of substance in the article, as opposed to questions of how things are argued or presented. Not having specialist knowledge of that field, I cannot see my way to contributing. Feel welcome to rattle my cage again if I have misunderstood. JonRichfield (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oranges and oranges?[edit]

The main page seems to imply that HD graphics are the same as a GPU but there is nothing i can find in Intel literature that supports that idea. There is also no reliable source that indicates EUs are the same as GPU cores.

Here is some evidence that they are not. Take a look at the review posted at http://mymediaexperience.com/intel-hd-3000-vs-discrete-graphics/

Note that the CPU load while playing HD video is 7% for the Nvidia GPU but rises to 25% for the HD graphics solution. Note also that the benchmark results are similar but the performance of the HD graphics declines significantly when playing a game which demands both CPU and graphics resources at the same time.

The increased loading when using HD graphics strongly suggests that EUs are not independent from the CPU cores and are not really equivalent to GPU cores. The main page would be improved by clarifying this.174.3.61.221 (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Cooper River[edit]

Intel E7221 Integrated Graphics Controller is missing.

Launch: 2004

Market: Server

Chipset: E7221

Code name: Cooper River

Device ID: 8086:258a

Title[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Intel graphics processing units → List of Intel graphics processing units – This is one of several articles that I think are all mistitled for the same reasons. Please see the centralized discussion at WikiProject_Computing. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close discussion spread over 4 talk pages. If you want a multimove discussion, please use the appropriate template and close this discussion, if you want separate discussions, please close your centralized discussion -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of Intel graphics processing units. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

I strongly disagree with splitting the article into multiple pages and strongly belive that it is highly useful exactly because ALL entries are on a single page. This split was just done, by User:Tiarapantier with no discussion here, to this and the equivalent NVIDIA and AMD GPU pages. Reverted. Concentrate2 (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Intel graphics processing units. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EU & GFLOPS List[edit]

A sort of listing would be welcome. The formulas are interesting but hard to try. Thanks

Intel GPU is a misnomer[edit]

If you look at any of Intel's documentation, they never refer to these products as a "GPU". Integrated graphics are part of either the chipset or processor silicon, therefore they are not graphics processing "units".

To be more in line with Intel's nomenclature and be correct, I suggest the title of this page be rewritten as: "List of Intel integrated graphics processors". It would also be beneficial to go through and differentiate those which are integrated on the chipset and those which are integrated on the processor which varies by generation. I would be glad to do it.

Source: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005718/processors.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.13.12 (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Intel graphics processing units. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Arc Desktop Template[edit]

Is there a template for Intel Arc Desktop? According to Intel® Arc™ A380 Graphics, Intel has launched the A380 which is a desktop card and there have been reviews on it. AurorusGreg6105 (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did Intel skip a generation?[edit]

Did Intel go from generation 9 to generation 11? If so, perhaps that could be noted. If not, where is it? I saw mention of "generation X" versus "Xth generation" above, but I can't see either between 9 and 11, while searching for "gen10" gets zero results and for "genx" one irrelevant result. However, "10th" is listed under "current products" at the bottom. 86.5.88.131 (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is a 10th generation line of Intel processors - I'm typing this on a Dell workstation with a Core i9-10900. However, the on-processor graphics unit for the 8th, 9th, and 10th generation processors are mostly the same: UHD Graphics 630. 164.64.133.192 (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dude the question is related to graphics and Intel skipped "Gen 10" graphics and went from "Gen 9.5" graphics to "Gen 11" graphics on Ice Lake (10th gen mobile Core processors). RM12 (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FP64 support of Arc Alchemist[edit]

There is none, so the performance numbers of double precision are invalid. community.intel.com/t5/Graphics/clinfo-on-Intel-Arc-A770/m-p/1423479#M110557

212.29.44.196 (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vulkan supported versions has errors.[edit]

Gen9, Gen11 and Gen12 are listed to have vulkan 1.3 support on Windows but only 1.2 on Linux. So no GPU has 1.3 support on Linux according to that. But it's clearly not the case: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Mesa-22.0-Released However how to know which gens have 1.3 support. Because assuming it means parity with Windows could be false. Especially since older gens have better vulkan support on Linux. So 1.3 support could go older than gen9. (1.2 and 1.1 might eventually has errors also)

Also UHD Graphics 600 & UHD Graphics 605 on Windows suddenly only support 1.2 when there genmates support 1.3. This is super suspicious. Tuxayo (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, we have everything here to fix the version support for Linux: https://mesamatrix.net/#Vulkan1.2 right? Tuxayo (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive intricate detail?[edit]

According to the alert at the top of the page that was apparently posted May 2023, this article "may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience". I'm here to argue otherwise.

This article is valuable to me because I am not within the assumed "particular audience" that may find all of this information interesting. My reason for coming to this page was simply because I had no idea what was meant when a particular piece of software required "Haswell architecture and newer". I was relieved to find the answer on this page, and also very much appreciated seeing all the Intel GPU specs listed together, so I could appreciate the differences between models.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has wanted to quickly look up something about how their own GPU fits in the context of all of the other Intel GPUs. Merely looking up specs doesn't generally give much help for this. I hope this page will still exist when I am next in the market for an upgrade, because I wouldn't want to comparison shop without it! -- Qrystal (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's the point of such articles and condensed lists. RM12 (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Intel_graphics_processing_units&oldid=1203651570"