- #INTEL GMA X4500 SPECIFICATIONS DRIVERS#
- #INTEL GMA X4500 SPECIFICATIONS UPDATE#
- #INTEL GMA X4500 SPECIFICATIONS DRIVER#
- #INTEL GMA X4500 SPECIFICATIONS FULL#
- #INTEL GMA X4500 SPECIFICATIONS SOFTWARE#
#INTEL GMA X4500 SPECIFICATIONS SOFTWARE#
I think Intel's concern was that you'd need a dual-core CPU to get useful performance figures from software SM3.0 code (though it would still be nowhere near fast enough for any game), and since there's no way to modify 915G to support a dual-core processor, they just didn't see the point in allowing it to support SM3.0. Maury 13:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC) It's certainly possible, the 900 and 950 have similar enough cores. Maury 21:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Dave, do you know if the 950's shader support also worked on the 900's then? It's certainly possible Intel wouldn't back port, but given that it was all running on the host CPU, it seems equally possible they could have. I take this one back, I mis-read the numbers. Why does the 950 have a higher peak pixel fill rate if the clocks and pipes are the same as the 900? Why does the 950 section claim that SM3 doubles the 3DMark performance? It'd only really be useful as a tool for developers to test their SM3.0 code on and ensuring that it was bug free. The 950 only supports SM3.0 in software you'd never get usable performance figures from it.
Why does the 950 section claim that it supports Shader Model 3, yet the X3000 claims that will be the first to do so? This implies that some other chip was? Otherwise, why even mention it at all? Why did every section state the chip was not based on the PowerVR. Is the 2.0 stuff done in software? If so, we should note this on the chart. Why does the chart list the X3000 as being able to do OpenGL 2.0? According to the documentation on Intel's site, it does only hardware-accelerated 1.5.
#INTEL GMA X4500 SPECIFICATIONS DRIVER#
It is unclear from Intel's website if such a driver will be provided in the future. Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.116.36 ( talk) 21:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC) I added Aero info based on the external link already cited in the article: Re GMA 500 - it appears the the chip supports all features required to run Aero, however there is currently no Vista WDDM driver available on Intel's website. Someone should add a column listing Aero compatibility. Would be nice to see which chipsets support Aero at a glance.
#INTEL GMA X4500 SPECIFICATIONS UPDATE#
Simba B 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Update the table with Aero? I am not aware of the fate of the proprietary driver, but it as far as I know it has no secrets or extra features anymore, or those that it does will soon be in the OSS driver. Now, this functionality is now available in open source and being worked on by Intel developers in a branch of the driver's git tree. It was, however, capable of mode setting without the video BIOS (as the 'i810' driver was not) and driving third-party TV encoders.
#INTEL GMA X4500 SPECIFICATIONS FULL#
Among other things, it lacked full 3D acceleration support.
They did have a binary-only driver called the IEGD (Intel Embedded Graphics Driver), but as the name suggests, this driver was not targeted at desktop and laptop end-users. Intel graphics products have had open source support for years now, but what is notable about the 965 support is that the release of this chip was a point at which Intel could have easily gone binary-only (as ATI did some years ago). More accurately, they added support for the new 965 chips to the existing open-source 'i810' driver in the X.org source tree. The section saying that Intel open sourced it's X11 graphics driver is a bit misleading. I know its boring, but Intel's efforts at graphics from the ill fated i740, to the 810/15, should be here also.
#INTEL GMA X4500 SPECIFICATIONS DRIVERS#