Two days ago Intel made the mistake of playing a video of a DX11 game (F1 2011) instead of running the game itself on an Ivy Bridge Ultrabook. We mentioned the gaffe in our original post on the topic and followed up yesterday with a video that showed the title working on an Ivy Bridge notebook. Unfortunately the Ultrabook from the original demo wasn't available at the time, but we finally got some hands on time with the exact system that Mooly used in the original presentation:

The Ivy Bridge part inside runs at 2.0GHz by default but it supports configurable TDP, which is where the 2.5GHz value that Windows reports comes from. Intel isn't entirely sure how it's going to report configurable TDP values at this point. The part is a 17W ULV CPU.

The game is F1 2011, we confirmed it was once-again running in DX11 mode and at Medium quality defaults at the Ultrabook's native 13x7 resolution. 
 
Video of the system is running below:
 
POST A COMMENT

32 Comments

View All Comments

  • AtwaterFS - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - link

    The truth is just str8-up BORING! Reply
  • grrrrr - Thursday, January 12, 2012 - link

    not to mention F.A.K.E. Reply
  • paul878 - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - link

    "Two days ago Intel made the mistake of playing a video of a DX11 game (F1 2011) instead of running the game itself on an Ivy Bridge Ultrabook"

    How can anyone one make this kind of Mistake??????????
    Reply
  • Jambe - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - link

    Last-minute driver or hardware issue?

    It is an unreleased product after all.
    Reply
  • paul878 - Thursday, January 12, 2012 - link

    What the did was NOT a mistake, It a scam!! Reply
  • Hector2 - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - link

    Agreed. Intel's VP screwed up big time and made a fool out of himself replacing a demo that wasn't ready with a video. Guys at his level are paid big bucks not to have this serious lack of judgement Reply
  • Natfly - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 - link

    Not necessarily a mistake by playing the video, but by being caught.

    You have an unlreased cpu with an unlreased gpu (keep in mind intel gpu drivers); do you provide a live demo and risk shit going haywire or do you show a video of it performing optimally?

    But yeah, it's wrong to misrepresent your product's abilities from "how they actually are" as "how you eventually expect them to be."

    I'm not excusing their actions, but it isn't unexpected.
    Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, January 12, 2012 - link

    It's apparently common practice to record all live demos in case things go wrong... Reply
  • AnandThenMan - Thursday, January 12, 2012 - link

    Is it also common practice to pretend to be playing the game until you realize you can't get away with it anymore? But I shouldn't be surprised, instead of calling out Intel like you SHOULD be (and any other company that pulls this garbage), you continue to make excuses for them. And would you point me to any other public demonstrations that faked what was supposed to be real time, live gameplay? After all, this is "common practice".

    The integrity of this site is becoming more and more suspect, not to mention yourself.
    Reply
  • Sabresiberian - Friday, January 13, 2012 - link

    Anand himself called out Intel when he published his first article. How can anyone say he was trying to do anything except make Intel prove what they claimed? If he wanted to hide what they did, he simply wouldn't have mentioned it at all.

    Seriously. Some of you need to check your logic. You also need to read more articles written by Anand if you are going to question his integrity. Quit arguing out of your hatred for Intel (or whatever excuse you have for not thinking about what you are saying).

    Sometimes, I wish there was a test for reading comprehension before people were allowed to post on sites like this. The only real slide downhill I see on this site is in the quality of comments from some people who post here.

    In the light of what has been proven about Sandy Bridge's capabilities, why is it so hard to believe Intel can, and has, put DX11 on Ivy Bridge's die? In the light of the fact that DX11 is more efficient than DX10, and there are Sandy Bridge ultrabooks already in existence, why is it so hard to believe Intel can put DX11 on a die and put Ivy Bridge in an ultrabook?

    Why would they need to fake anything? It simply makes no sense.

    ;)
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now