Talk:Intel Graphics Technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Intel HD Graphics)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Computer graphics    (Inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.


the I3-2105 has HD 3000 graphics too79.230.137.149 (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That processor, and the rest of its series, is already on the chart as "Core i3-21x5". --Juventas (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

merge, split? - AMD, Nvidia, Intel[edit]

Currently we have a unified lists for GPUs from AMD and Nvidia, but for Intel there are two articles: Intel HD Graphics, Intel GMA - but those include descriptions besides the specifications tables.

I suggest combining the two Intel tables into Comparison of Intel graphics processing units and keeping in the current "Intel HD" and "Intel GMA" articles only the descriptions - just like we have for the different Radeon and Geforce families. Ianteraf (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I never understood why those comparison articles were grouped that way. They are totally unwieldy with no end in sight. HD Graphics wasn't simply a new name, it was the end of Intel's northbridge-based graphics, and the beginning of processor-based. --Juventas (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't get it - do you agree or disagree with the proposed arrangement?
About "HD Graphics" - actually the first iteration is a "northbridge hidden inside the package along the CPU". Sandy Bridge is the first product, where the CPU and GPU are on the same die, but still the GPU part is "upgrade" of the previous northbridge designs.
Anyway, my point above is that it's better to keep all specification tables in one article, so that evolution can be tracked and current products compared (e.g. Atom GPU and "big" GPU) - just like for Radeon and Geforce. At the same time "Intel GMA" and "Intel HD" will remain as articles describing the features and other details about the products. Ianteraf (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that uniformity is desirable. I disagree that existing or future "Comparison of x graphics" should use the manufacturer for x.
The existing articles are undesirably long, and will likely become even longer (see WP:LENGTH). They could be made shorter, and arranged more logically, by using brand (ie: GeForce, Quadro, Tesla), application (ie: desktop, mobile, workstation), or another arrangement, instead of manufacturer. In the case of Intel, they have a very logical division with GMA and HD Graphics. --Juventas (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that length is an issue in these cases (similar to lists). Dividing the comparison articles along marketing names like Geforce, Quadro, etc. is not useful, because in some cases those are almost (or fully) the same chips and in other cases under the same marketing name (or family) are placed substantially different and unrelated chips. Dividing along mobile/desktop/etc has similar problem - most of those are also highly related (e.g. mobile chips of family 6xxx are low-power binned desktop 6xxx chips - or vice versa). Dividing along "real" architecture origins may be useful, but there will be plenty of editors coming with marketing-viewpoint and arguing to add/remove chips based on marketing instead of architecture. IMHO comparison of specifications (topic of the articles) is more of a technical issue than marketing/naming issue. If everything is kept in the same place readers can do whatever cross-section comparison they want - marketing, technical, etc.
About the Intel case - actually GMA X4500HD is very close predecessor of "HD Graphics" (the northbridge of the initial Core i7/5/etc) and at the same time it's very different from GMA3150. GMA500/600/3600 are totally different and unrelated to any of the others as well.
That are my reasons for proposing that the Intel articles follow the format of AMD/Nvidia articles. Ianteraf (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Comparison of Intel graphics processing units done. Ianteraf (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Mobile Intel HD graphics[edit]

This isn't an advertisement, but to cite the source I found this from.

It says "Mobile Intel HD graphics" but that isn't listed here?

I'm not sure what it is or what the differences are so yeah that's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User9733 (talkcontribs) 07:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Pixel clock for inactive connection[edit]

The article says: DisplayPort requires only a single pixel clock for all active connections, regardless of how many there are (this is not the case for non-active connections, which would require an extra pixel clock for each connection).
How can an inactive connection require any clocks ? -- Juergen (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note, that section is improved to provide a correct explanation. — Dsimic (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Iris and Iris Pro[edit]

@Someone not using his real name: Regarding your edit, "Iris" and "Iris Pro" aren't synonymous to the Intel HD graphics, they's just names for some of its types – just as "HD 4000" is only the name for one of its variants. Of course, I'm open to further discussion. — Dsimic (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Iris [Pro] is a name for the high-end (sub-)series just like "HD" is nowadays the name of the low end sub-series. The full model name includes a number for Iris stuff as well, e.g. "Iris Graphics 5100" is the correct analogue for something like "HD Graphics 4200". Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The driver is now called [1] "Intel® Iris™ and HD graphics Driver for Windows 7/8/8.1* 64" for example. Perhaps renaming the page to Intel HD and Iris Graphics might make some sense. I see no reason to remove the bold from Iris in the lead though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hm, you're right, it was somewhat blurry at the start of Iris' introduction; however, Intel probably wants to start fresh with its faster integrated GPUs. Having that in mind, Iris and Iris Pro shouldn't be described there, but in a separate article? Or it might be the best to have this article renamed to "Intel integrated graphics", and have it cover the whole range? I'd vote for renaming... Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Eh, I think there's not enough technological difference at the moment to justify a separate article, despite Intel's new branding effort. The non-Pro Iris 5100 is basically just a slightly faster clocked HD 5000 (well, itself that part isn't available except to/via OEMs at the moment). If they had just named the ones with eDRAM Iris (or all the GT3 40-core ones), it might have such a split somewhat plausible (given the extra tech involved), but not the way it's now -- a combination of new tech and re-branding. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, that's obviously just an Intel's way to "start fresh", while trying to get rid of a somewhat bad image associated with HD Graphics (due to not-so-great performance). — Dsimic (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
If we rename the article, bolding in lead section would be just fine. As-is, bolding "Iris" and "Iris Pro" would actually suggest those are variants of the HD graphics, if you agree. I'd say that renaming to Intel integrated graphics would be better, as it's a more general name, ready for future additions to the Intel's iGPU ranges. — Dsimic (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's too ambiguous as title, as they had graphics integrated in the northbridge rather than the CPU in the past, e.g. Intel GMA; see Comparison of Intel graphics processing units for the full list (and which isn't really a comparison, by the way). Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

──── Ok, I went ahead with renaming the article and clarifying the lead section accordingly, please check it out. — Dsimic (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that was a bit premature. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Ugh, silly me, totally forgot about previous Intel's integrated GPUs like Intel GMA. :( If you agree, I'll do the renaming to Intel HD and Iris Graphics as it's much better – with updating redirect pages and everything. — Dsimic (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
@Someone not using his real name: Just checking, are you Ok with this re-renaming? — Dsimic (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead for the second round of renaming, please check it out. — Dsimic (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


APU is an AMD-specific term, not an industry-wide term; see [2] for example. So it probably shouldn't be used on this page in the "is a" way that's done now. It would fine to say that AMD uses that term for their version of CPU-inegrated graphics somewhere in the history section perhaps. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, let's delete that except for a brief comparison with AMD's solutions; I've never seen "APU" mentioned in Intel's papers. — Dsimic (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hm, on second thought, it looks like "APU" is actually some kind of an industry-wide term, at least as stated by the Accelerated processing unit article, and pages like this one. However, I've newer seen the term "APU" used by Intel. — Dsimic (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

4K support?[edit]

The new ASUS Chromebox supposedly has Intel Graphics and supports 4K. Anyone know the chip model? --Pmsyyz (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Point of view[edit]

"The performance increases brought by Intel's HD Graphics made the products competitive with integrated graphics adapters made by its rivals, Nvidia and ATI/AMD." Come on, we all know better than this. What does "competitive" mean? Certainly the IG is no comparison to Nvidia or ATI/AMD offerings, and no one looking at an Nvidia card is going to be considering an HD graphics for the same task, so it is not competitive. With no citation, I would propose deletion of this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the quoted sentence compares integrated graphics adapters from various manufacturers, not Intel HD and various discrete GPU offerings. Also, now there's a reference explaining that further, please check it out. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Intel Atom[edit]

What about the integrated graphic of the Atom family (IE, silver trail, bay trail, cherry trail etc.)? This article completely lacks of informations about them, it should be integrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right, the article should be expanded to cover Atom processors as well. In the meantime, here's a brief description and another one, which could be used as references. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox is wrong[edit]

The infobox lists, for instance, OpenCL 1.2 support for "IntelHD", but generation 1 intel core IntelHD doesn't support OpenCL 1.2, and it only supports directx 10.1, and opengl 2.1. The next gen bumps opengl up to 3.1 but the rest is the same. 3rd bumps those up to dx 11, opengl 4, and opencl 1.2. Gen 3 brings it up to dx11.2.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello! You're right, those should be conducted as "up to" versions. Any ideas how should we do that? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking better now? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Skylake + eDRAM (Iris 540)[edit]

Has someone a reliable (Intel) source that the Iris 540 features 64MB of eDRAM? E.g. Intel ARK does not list eDRAM , but a lot of 3rd party-sites do so: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Intel Quick Sync Video[edit]

While Intel HD and Iris Graphics IMHO rather refers to Intel implementation of a GPU (only?), Intel Quick Sync Video clearly refers to their implementation of a hardware video compression/decompression SIP core. Therefore I would like to move Intel_HD_and_Iris_Graphics#Capabilities_.28GPU_video_acceleration.29 to that article. User:ScotXWt@lk 09:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

But Intel's documents like and say Quick Sync Video (the VEBOX) is part of the Gen architecture. Icosie (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


What is "tier"? It's not explained anywhere in the article. Can someone either wikilink it or add a description somewhere in the article? cherkash (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Coffee Lake ?[edit]

Announced before Cannonlake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C53F:B9E8:7938:F365:A258:7F6B (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Future microarchitectures[edit]

Anonymous IP user keeps readding empty sections for future microarchitectures: Coffee Lake, Cannonlake, Icelake, and Tigerlake. I feel these should not be here because of WP:NOTCRYSTAL, and what little information is provided is not useful or speculative. I would like consensus on this matter to avoid edit warring. Thanks. --Vossanova o< 19:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Empty sections are of no use to readers. A new section needs to contain verifiable content or it is eligible for removal. If there is verifiable information about future microarchitectures, it might be more appropriate to create a new Future microarchitectures section with a summary. ~Kvng (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intel HD and Iris Graphics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Vulkan 1.0 by Ivy Bridge? or Haswell and higher, Vulkan 1.1 by Skylake and higher available[edit]

See Khronos conformance Table for Vulkan — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Moved from "Intel HD, UHD, and Iris Graphics"[edit]

After noticing how awkward the title "Intel HD, UHD, and Iris Graphics" was, I've boldly decided to move the page to "Intel Graphics Technology" because that's what Intel officially calls these processor graphics solutions as a whole. This is supported by a few data points:

  • Intel's official page refers to the processor graphics as "Intel® Graphics Technology".
  • Certain system monitoring tools, including Intel's own Power Gadget, use "GT" to refer to the processor graphics with respect to its power usage. "GT" can be understood to mean "Graphics Technology".
  • The different tiers for the processor graphics are called "GT2", "GT3e", etc. Again, "GT" should be understood as "Graphics Technology".

I've edited the lead section a bit to reflect this change, but have not reviewed the rest of the article. I'll see if any other changes are needed, but I might not be around to copy-edit the article in detail, so feel free to update the article as needed. bwDracotalk/contribs 05:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC) (edited 05:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC))

A bit of an aside, but if you're curious about why I call them "processor graphics" instead of "integrated graphics", it's because Intel distinguishes between the two: the former is for a GPU on the processor itself while the latter is for motherboard-integrated GPUs (which are basically obsolete). bwDracotalk/contribs 05:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Release dates for Kaby Lake and beyond?[edit]

For historical interest, it would be good to continue showing the approximate release dates for each new generation of chipset, such as Kaby Lake. Is there a source which summarizes that for all the chipsets? --IanOsgood (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Tiger Lake[edit]

Elkhart Lake[edit]

New Features: 10 nm Gen 11 GPU microarchitecture[1]

Tiger Lake[edit]

New Features: 10 nm Xe GPU microarchitecture, Latest Display Technology[2] Display State Buffer[3] Removed Features: Removal of the register scoreboard logic from the hardware[4]

Alder Lake[edit]

New Features: 10 nm Gen 13 GPU microarchitecture[5]

Vossanova is a moron idiot that ignores good information confirmed by Intel & Intel employees.

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^ Eassa, Ashraf (1 December 2017). "The lake afterwards has a Gen13 GPU :-)". @TMFChipFool. Retrieved 2018-02-11.[dead link]