Wednesday, January 11th 2012

Intel's Dodgy Ivy Bridge DX11 Demo: That Ultrabook Tested

Yesterday, we reported on Intel's embarrassing gaffe at demonstrating racing game F1 1 2011 running on a prototype ultrabook with an Ivy Bridge processor, where it was really just a video. Since then, AnandTech has seen that game play on an Ivy Bridge notebook just fine, but the best proof has come now, where they got hold of the actual ultrabook at the centre of the controversy and tested it with that game. The result? It works just fine, like we suspected. It looks like Intel just need a little PR makeover, is all. Video proof follows.

Add your own comment

26 Comments on Intel's Dodgy Ivy Bridge DX11 Demo: That Ultrabook Tested

#1
seronx
It's stuttering more than the VLC playback and you say that is okay?
Posted on Reply
#2
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: seronx
It's stuttering more than the VLC playback and you say that is okay?
No, it's not exactly smooth on Intel's video demo, either and it looks about the same to me. This suggests that they recorded it playing on the ultrabook and then showed that video.

Regardless, it's doing very well to be playing it as well as it does.
Posted on Reply
#4
NC37
by: pakbambang
can it play crysis?
If it can only handle that game on medium with stuttering...Crysis would be LOL :roll:

Looking to be a low to medium performer, but no match for Trinity if that is the best it can do. Suspect it may get close to Brazos performance which is a good thing. Shows Intel is taking the APU threat seriously.
Posted on Reply
#5
seronx
by: qubit
No, it's not exactly smooth on Intel's video demo, either and it looks about the same to me. This suggests that they recorded it playing on the ultrabook and then showed that video.

Regardless, it's doing very well to be playing it as well as it does.
Now show me it doing Transcoding and playing a Video Game
Posted on Reply
#6
bencrutz
by: seronx
Now show me it doing Transcoding and playing a Video Game
and playing HD video all at once ;)
Posted on Reply
#7
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: seronx
Now show me it doing Transcoding and playing a Video Game
I showed your comment to be wrong. You can't now move the goalposts. ;)
Posted on Reply
#8
seronx
by: qubit
I showed your comment to be wrong. You can't now move the goalposts. ;)
You didn't provie it wrong it is clearly stuttering...
Posted on Reply
#9
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: seronx
You didn't provie it wrong it is clearly stuttering...
Duh! :rolleyes: I can't believe you've 'misunderstood' what I've said to you, so completely. :shadedshu You need to read my post to you again.
Posted on Reply
#10
Delta6326
F1 2010 is my most played game on Steam and I would not play it with the bad fps, its "fine" to watch that benchmark the game plays for you, but to actually drive would be hard as you have to brake and accelerate right on time.
Posted on Reply
#12
RejZoR
It felt sluggish when all cars crammed together in corner. Besides, what's impressive about running a game on medium? AMD's ultrabook was running the same game on High, was converting a HD video and was playing a HD video at the same time. That was impressive. This however is "just some ultrabook". Intel, i am disappoint.
Posted on Reply
#13
Completely Bonkers
I'm impressed. This is an ultrabook. Not exactly designed as a gaming rig, but still a great performance nonetheless. Certainly faster a whole lot faster than my current netbook, and therefore a worthy upgrade consideration.

For 95% of the target market for this ultrabook, this is great performance.
Posted on Reply
#14
R_1
Sure, if you say so. :laugh: This time there is an alternative - Trinity.
Posted on Reply
#15
entropy13
by: RejZoR
It felt sluggish when all cars crammed together in corner. Besides, what's impressive about running a game on medium? AMD's ultrabook was running the same game on High, was converting a HD video and was playing a HD video at the same time. That was impressive. This however is "just some ultrabook". Intel, i am disappoint.
And AMD doesn't have an experienced graphics arm too, just like Intel. AMD haven't bought ATi, just like Intel. :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#16
Zubasa
by: entropy13
And AMD doesn't have an experienced graphics arm too, just like Intel. AMD haven't bought ATi, just like Intel. :rolleyes:
And Intel has less R&D funds available than AMD or ATI :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#17
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: RejZoR
AMD's ultrabook was running the same game on High, was converting a HD video and was playing a HD video at the same time.
Where did you see it doing that? I haven't seen that demo. I saw one where it was running a "DX11" racing game but it wasn't F1 and the settings were never revealed(looked pretty low to me). And they also didn't make any mention if the HD Video and video converting was being done with the GPU or the CPU. Considering it had a Quad-core, I'm guessing the demo was set up to run the converting and the hd playback using the CPU(which is is more than capable of doing), leaving the GPU to render the game at whatever settings they could get it to run at(looked like medium to me). Something IvyBridge won't have a problem doing either.

Edit: I went back and watched the video again, and the video converter clearly has a "CPU" meter at the bottom monitoring CPU usage of the program. So we know at least the media converter was setup to use the CPU only and I'm guessing the HD Video playback is the same. So big deal, they are using a Quad-core for multitasking. Something that we already know IvyBridge does better.

Edit2: Also the game they are using is Dirt2. So not even close to a modern DX11 game at this point, and certainly not a "High End" one like they claim. In fact it is still using the Ego 1.0 engine, which barely has DX11 features at all(I think the crowds were tessellated and that is about it). They couldn't even managed to get Dirt3 running, which at least would use a modern DX11 engine, and the same engine as F1 2011 that Intel demos.
Posted on Reply
#18
p3ngwin1
by: newtekie1
Where did you see it doing that? I haven't seen that demo. I saw one where it was running a "DX11" racing game but it wasn't F1 and the settings were never revealed(looked pretty low to me). And they also didn't make any mention if the HD Video and video converting was being done with the GPU or the CPU. Considering it had a Quad-core, I'm guessing the demo was set up to run the converting and the hd playback using the CPU(which is is more than capable of doing), leaving the GPU to render the game at whatever settings they could get it to run at(looked like medium to me). Something IvyBridge won't have a problem doing either.

Edit: I went back and watched the video again, and the video converter clearly has a "CPU" meter at the bottom monitoring CPU usage of the program. So we know at least the media converter was setup to use the CPU only and I'm guessing the HD Video playback is the same. So big deal, they are using a Quad-core for multitasking. Something that we already know IvyBridge does better.

Edit2: Also the game they are using is Dirt2. So not even close to a modern DX11 game at this point, and certainly not a "High End" one like they claim. In fact it is still using the Ego 1.0 engine, which barely has DX11 features at all(I think the crowds were tessellated and that is about it). They couldn't even managed to get Dirt3 running, which at least would use a modern DX11 engine, and the same engine as F1 2011 that Intel demos.
have a look at this video where the transcoding is claimed to be using HD video as the source, also claiming the video playing on the laptop screen is HD video too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agJxehoSBmY
  • the AMD Trinity was running the medicoder program to use the CPU only, without GPU acceleration, that can be seen in the video.

  • it was trans-coding various HD video files of unknown specs to iPad format, 1024x768, and again unknown quality.

  • as for the video it was also playing on the laptop screen, again that is HD video unknown spec and quality.
The best part ?

All that, running competently, and in 17WATTS is very impressive. http://hothardware.com/News/AMD-Fusion-APU-and-Graphics-Update-Trinity-7000M-Mobile-GPUs-and-Lightning-Bolt-In-Action/ <--- second paragraph mentions wattage.

looks like for 17watts you can get a mobile dual-core IvyBridge, but if you want a quadcore, that will cost you 45watts. this doesn't account for the performance compared to AMD's Trinity (cores perform differently per company), but it is interesting that AMD managed to get 4 Piledriver cores and a 7000-series GPU into 17watts.

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2011/2011120601_Ivy_Bridge_mobile_CPU_lineup_revealed.html
Posted on Reply
#19
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: p3ngwin1
have a look at this video where the transcoding is claimed to be using HD video as the source, also claiming the video playing on the laptop screen is HD video too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agJxehoSBmY
  • the AMD Trinity was running the medicoder program to use the CPU only, without GPU acceleration, that can be seen in the video.

  • it was trans-coding various HD video files of unknown specs to iPad format, 1024x768, and again unknown quality.

  • as for the video it was also playing on the laptop screen, again that is HD video unknown spec and quality.
The best part ?

All that, running competently, and in 17WATTS is very impressive. http://hothardware.com/News/AMD-Fusion-APU-and-Graphics-Update-Trinity-7000M-Mobile-GPUs-and-Lightning-Bolt-In-Action/ <--- second paragraph mentions wattage.

looks like for 17watts you can get a mobile dual-core IvyBridge, but if you want a quadcore, that will cost you 45watts. this doesn't account for the performance compared to AMD's Trinity (cores perform differently per company), but it is interesting that AMD managed to get 4 Piledriver cores and a 7000-series GPU into 17watts.

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2011/2011120601_Ivy_Bridge_mobile_CPU_lineup_revealed.html
Correct, my points are valid. I'm not talking about power consumption, I'm talking about his BS claims that there is a video showing a Trinity APU playing the same game at higher settings while transcoding and playing back an HD Video when there isn't.

It was using a barely DX11 capable game, using settings unknown(my guess medium or lower), while transcoding and playing and HD video using the CPU only. Nothing that Ivybridge, even a dual-core, couldn't do either.
Posted on Reply
#20
Steven B
this is another thing where media over reacts for a good story. i talked to Intel about this, at CES yesterday. Ever since bill gates blue screened they have been doing backups just in case. Sadly they needed it this time as the system crashed, they had to load the video and continue. Anyone see an Intel board yet? no right.

Intel is going to deliver what they said they would at the IDf presentation, which was pretty high.
Posted on Reply
#21
Jonap_1st
DX11 medium setting for just 720p resolution it looks..... pretty much laggish,

i saw trinity demo, and i believe it's more hunger for source, since it was run DIRT3 on higher resolution (probably 1600x1200 or 1680x1050), plus doing transcoding and playing HD video at the same time..

but still, intel is one step ahead when talk about raw cpu power than AMD. but it will never surpass AMD on the term of graphic performance and power management..
Posted on Reply
#22
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: Jonap_1st
but it will never surpass AMD on the term of graphic performance and power management..
How do you know that?

Also, aren't Intel already ahead in power management?
Posted on Reply
#23
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Jonap_1st
DX11 medium setting for just 720p resolution it looks..... pretty much laggish,

i saw trinity demo, and i believe it's more hunger for source, since it was run DIRT3 on higher resolution (probably 1600x1200 or 1680x1050), plus doing transcoding and playing HD video at the same time..

but still, intel is one step ahead when talk about raw cpu power than AMD. but it will never surpass AMD on the term of graphic performance and power management..
It was Dirt2 and undisclosed settings at an unknown resolution. Honestly, I wouldn't want to use either for gaming, their both crap GPU wise.
Posted on Reply
#24
Steven B
by: qubit
How do you know that?

Also, aren't Intel already ahead in power management?
yes for the most part, at least with BD compared to SB, and APU compared to SB. But iGPU wise the APU is more power efficient. With 22nm Intel will have no problem improving on this a lot, especially with configurable TDP.
Posted on Reply
#25
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: Steven B
yes for the most part, at least with BD compared to SB, and APU compared to SB. But iGPU wise the APU is more power efficient. With 22nm Intel will have no problem improving on this a lot, especially with configurable TDP.
Yes, the Llano iGPs are more efficient/just plain better than Intel's SB iGP, but will AMDs next gen be better than IB? That remains to be seen.

Also, I still don't get this configurable TDP. I know I should just look it up, but as far as I can see, it's nothing more than adjusting the performance vs power consumption ratios, as the two are mutually exclusive. Basically, IB has a certain maximum performance and they're simply dialing it back to save some electrical power. Nothing new or fancy in that.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment