This week Intel will begin sharing some of the first details of its Ivy Bridge processor (2012 Core i-series CPU) at the annual Intel Developer Forum in San Francisco. While the show officially starts on Tuesday, we have some early details about the chip.

Sandy Bridge was Intel's first high-end architecture to integrate a GPU on-die. The SNB GPU is available in two configurations: GT1 with 6 EUs (processors/execution units/cores) and GT2 with 12 EUs. All mobile versions ship with GT2 while most desktop parts ship with GT1. Intel calls GT2 its HD Graphics 3000 while GT1 chips come with HD Graphics 2000. There's a less featured version of GT1 that's simply called Intel HD Graphics as well and it's found in Sandy Bridge Pentium & Celeron CPUs.

Ivy Bridge's GT2 configuration has 16 EUs, no word on how many the GT1 configuration will have. As a result Intel is expecting a 60% increase in 3DMark Vantage scores (Performance Preset) and a 30% increase in 3DMark '06 scores. IVB GT1 on the other hand will only see performance increase by 10 - 20%. If we look at the 3DMark Vantage data from our Llano notebook review, a 60% increase in performance over SNB would put Ivy Bridge's GPU performance around that of AMD's A8. It remains to be seen how well this translates into actual gaming performance though.

The other information about Ivy Bridge's GPU has been known for a while: DX11, OpenCL 1.1 and OpenGL 3.1 will all be supported. The last tidbit we have is that Quick Sync performance is apparently much improved. Intel is privately claiming up to 2x better performance than Sandy Bridge in accelerated video transcoding or lesser gains but improved image quality. The performance improvements only apply to GT2 IVB configurations.

 

POST A COMMENT

35 Comments

View All Comments

  • jah1subs - Monday, September 12, 2011 - link

    Does this design fix the shortcoming that Sandy Bridge's graphics had with 23.976 fps?

    Did Intel perhaps finally deliver a software or firmware fix for the shortcomings that they had with the initial release version of 23.976 fps?

    Also, I never understood from the earlier write-ups what the user experience of the shortcomings were. This seems like an appropriate place to ask what is the user's experience because of the earlier shortcomings?
    Reply
  • jah1subs - Monday, September 12, 2011 - link

    I should add to this that I am thinking only of graphics for digital video transcoding and move playback. Reply
  • DanNeely - Monday, September 12, 2011 - link

    The problem with playing back 23.976hz video at 24hz is is that every 41.66seconds the 24hz playback gets one frame ahead of the 23.976 playback. To keep the video and audio in sync a frame shown twice, creating a stutter in the playback.

    What I've occasionally wondered is if speeding up the audio slightly to adjust might be less noticeable. It's a 0.1% difference so excepting people with perfect pitch I doubt it would be noticeable.
    Reply
  • jah1subs - Monday, September 12, 2011 - link

    Dan:

    Thank you
    Reply
  • valkyrie743 - Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - link

    they better fix the DXVA2 hardware acceleration issues ffmpeg has currently as well as the 23.976 bug

    i want a perfect HTPC cpu
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now