Far Cry is one of my favorites for benchmarking, but the flipside is that even though technically the game scales well, the visual difference is always painfully pronounced. Far Cry carves out another win for the GMA X, offering very playable performance with some minor image enhancements. Far Cry fans will be very happy with the X First, an amusing anecdote: running the game with the graphics card set at Minimum actually results in WORSE performance than running it with the graphics card set at Low.
And here we come to what was hands down the most aggravating, major disappointment of the entire suite of benchmarks. Their big win was playable performance in Episode One, which inherited the technology pioneered in Lost Coast. So I set everything to its lowest setting and ran the video stress test. This is horrendous. Simply put, image quality on the X is, much like the framerates often are, erratic.
About the only game I ran on it that seemed to look right was Far Cry. While a couple of games like Far Cry and F. What's the maximum number of indexes you can use in a single draw call? What's the maximum number of vertexes you can use in a single draw call? How many vertex shader instructions can you use? And so on. On modern hardware this doesn't matter so much you can be reasonably confident that it will support whatever you throw at it but if you need to support downlevel hardware - or the dreaded Intels - then these are all limits that you'll need to test and make sure you don't exceed.
In other cases, hardware vertex processing can be more lenient. It's perfectly permissible to throw some invalid parameters into DrawIndexedPrimitive, for example not that you should, but bear with me and hadware vertex processing won't even bat an eyelid, but software will complain - sometimes quite dramatically.
If you're just developing some stuff for your own use, you can use whichever your prefer but generally you'll want hardware, and when creating a new device one standard procedure is to attempt to create a hardware one first, test the HRESULT from your CreateDevice call, and if it fails then create software.
If you're developing something for public release I'd actually recommend that you test with both hardware and software VP, as it can be a great way of uncovering or helping to uncover some subtle bugs and bad behaviours. As has been mentioned, there are still some Intel Integrateds around primarily the and earlier that only support software vertex processing, but the procedure I outlined above will work with them. Finally, the performance difference.
For lightweight stuff you probably won't notice anything; vertex processing is highly unlikely to be your bottleneck. That may or may not be a big deal if your program is already fast enough and if you have an older GPU and need some increased limits in the vertex pipeline. Direct3D has need of instancing, but we do not. We have plenty of glVertexAttrib calls.
This topic is closed to new replies. Josheir Internship Possibility Games Career Development. Simple yet effective game engine architecture patterns? Engines and Middleware. Moko 1. Log in or Sign up. Intel X users rejoice! It's finally here! I don't game on my notebook, but I do play Quake 3 and some other oldies from time to time, it runs Quake 3 perfectly fine but I have to enable Aero to do this, and I don't use Aero for a multitude of reasons.
Never had this problem with XP, I've tried the drivers from intel, the official ones for my notebook form Lenovo and also the one from Windows Update. Last edited by a moderator: May 6, Thanks for the tips, I'll try during this evening. If the pre-modded ones are suitable then I'll stick with those, as time is a bit short now.
0コメント