I do have to agree that it's rather stupid to even include integrated graphics on the latest and greatest "high end" PCs, though. Given the cost of integrated graphics - about what, $5 extra, maybe $10? - it's not too surprising to see performance this low. :p (Sorry, but one stupid comment deserves another.) TrogdorJW - Monday, Auglink #2 - Yeah, this is the Intel quality and reliability, and as you can see from the article, it absolutely destroys the graphics solutions made by AMD. If you people call that a 'realiable' and 'quality' product from a company who holds more than the majority of market share I'd have to suggest you all get your eyesight checked. Obviously, there is a place for the GMA900, and we wouldn't be so hard on Intel if they could at least offer a performance based integrated solution for those who actually want compatibly, performance, and a good price point with their new system."Īnd that's putting it nicely after seeing three of these benchmarks of some pretty popular games display incorrectly. By providing poor support for current technology to such a wide number of people, Intel is doing more harm than good. "But we feel that being the number 1 supplier of graphics solutions in the world, Intel has a responsibility to uphold to the population of our small corner of the galaxy. tfranzese - Tuesday, Auglink And, where did I mention the performance? It certainly is poor (and Trogdor, the only thing stupid is your comparison which is severely lacking), but if you actually read the article there are plenty of times poor image quality and errors are brought up.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |