Unsurprisingly Nvidia doesn’t regard Intel’s HD graphics very highly at all. Despite the statisitically large leap forward Intel has made from Sandy Bridge’s HD 3000 to Ivy Bridge’s HD 4000, Nvidia still says consumers have been left with the same end result. That end result is that more than 40% of the top games of their respective release years are unplayable. Suggesting that yes Intel HD Graphics are moving in the right direction, but only at the same speed games are moving forward in terms of their graphical horsepower requirements. In other words Intel HD graphics will always be behind.
Nvidia’s testing to come to these harsh but mainly true conclusions was as follows:
- Top Games of 2010 for Sandy Bridge
- Top Games of 2011 for Ivy Bridge
- 1366 by 768 resolution, lowest/default settings
- Failure at being playable is defined as less than 30FPS avg with graphics “corruption”
Nvidia’s harsh words are unlikely to have much impact. Intel still remains the largest provider of graphics due to the number of CPUs it ships and it seems Nvidia (and AMD) will always be bitter about that. And everyone who games on the PC platform knows if you really want to max out games and get playable frame rates you have to buy a discrete AMD or Nvidia solution – so Nvidia are probably already preaching to the converted.
to be honest i am fine with 15 fps – 20 fps. i mean 24 fps is normal video framerates.
i think ivy bridge is really nice for games. at least it’s somewhat faster a bit than my Quadro 600.