I'm puzzled by something here. All I have read is the Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3000 IGP is suppose to support HD-playback and it's going to be a revolutionary design in IGP according to Intel( I guess it is for Intels IGP standards), but then I look at the specs and other then supporting DirectX 10 it's no diff then the Nvidia 61xx series. I mean, you need at least a 7600gt or a X1600PRO or higher to run HD-playback, so how can this thing run it???????

If by some chance it can man I would hate to see the bog-down it will do on your system running HD. Ouch!

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 200gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

"so how can this thing run it???????"

You have to remember these will be on motherboards that accept faster RAM, which is what is used for video memory.

Also, the CPU these motherboards will be coupled with are faster than previous generation CPU's.

Yes, it will take more system resources to do this, but you will have more to spare.

Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina!

www.redcross.org

DDR2 on a motherboard isn't going to make a diff when running HD-Playback. It's the GPU itself. HD-playback doesn't care if it's 1gb of DDR RAM or 1gb of DDR2 Ram.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

"HD content from a Blu-ray or HD-DVD disc requires quite a bit of processing power; Cyberlink recommends using a dual-core processor like the Intel Pentium D, Core 2 Duo or AMD Athlon X2. As a graphics card you should at least use a nVidia GeForce 7600 or ATI Radeon X1600 series with a *minimum of 256MB video memory.*"

http://www.hardware.info/en-US/news...

If video memory is being used, surely the speed of that memory would also be a factor. I also have to point out what kind of memory both the 7600 and the X1600 and above video cards have... *cough DDR2/DDR3 *cough*

So I beg to differ. System memory, if used as video memory as it is in this case, will matter if it's DDR2.

"How many squirrels had to die to make you look fly?!"

That's because gpu companies moved away from DDR 3 1/2 years ago when HD for pc's weren't even on blueprints yet. DDR2 doesn't = faster. Prime example of that is DDR 500 vs DDR2 800 or DDR 400 vs DDR2 667 in terms of Benchmarking with an Asrock motherboard using an Intel Core 2 Duo processor. The results ended up in a tie.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

"Prime example of that is DDR 500 vs DDR2 800 or DDR 400 vs DDR2 667 in terms of Benchmarking with an Asrock motherboard using an Intel Core 2 Duo processor."

A CPU does not benefit nearly as much as a GPU from faster memory. For CPU's you can see clearly DDR2 hasn't done that much more for it.

But are you seriously suggesting that a video card doesn't benefit from DDR2?!

"How many squirrels had to die to make you look fly?!"

No. You missed the point. I'm saying that the type of DDR used in main boards doesn't really matter in terms of IGP’s performance from that ram or else the X300 IGP on intel 945 motherboards using DDR2 would out perform an X300 IGP using DDR on a socket 939 motherboard in terms of graphic benchmarks in which they don’t, the results are the same.

This has nothing to do with parallel graphic cards and the ram they use.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

Let's take a look...

Intel x3000 = 667MHz clock speed

ATI X300 = 325MHz clock speed

I wonder why DDR2 makes no difference on the X300. Complete mystery...

Also interesting that the more advanced 1100 series ATI IGP's only work with DDR2. I wonder why that would be...

I see a pattern!

Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina!

www.redcross.org

What in blue blazes are you talking about? i'm not talking about comapring these 2 graphics chips the X300 and the GMA X3000 that has nothing to do with anything. The last statement was referring to the X300 DDR2 version vs the X300 DDR2.

The 1100 is still based on the ATI X300 IGP, and it still has the same results as the X300 DDR version. There is no diff.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

Dude, you're utterly confusing.

"I'm saying that the type of DDR used in main boards doesn't really matter in terms of IGP’s performance from that ram or else the X300 IGP on intel 945 motherboards using DDR2 would out perform an X300 IGP using DDR on a socket 939 motherboard in terms of graphic benchmarks in which they don’t, the results are the same."

My point was the X300 IGP is so slow, DDR2 memory which provides more memory bandwidth to the video card doesn't help it because it's not fast enough to take advantage of it.

To say DDR2 wouldn't benefit the Intel GMA X3000 using that as proof makes no sense. The Intel is more than double the clockspeed.

Your argument is like taking a Geforce 1 series, slapping DDR2 on it, benchmarking it to show it's not faster than DDR, and then claiming DDR2 doesn't help all graphics cards in general. That's absolutely false. This Intel IGP is clocked substantially faster than any ATI IGP, so comparing an ATI IGP to it makes no sense and is irrelevant.

"The 1100 is still based on the ATI X300 IGP, and it still has the same results as the X300 DDR version."

Oh, you see benchmarks with the 1100 series using DDR, eh? Also, notice the 1100 series still only tops off at 400MHz clock. That's still not nearly what the Intel IGP is.

"The last statement was referring to the X300 DDR2 version vs the X300 DDR2."

Huh?!

The point about this is without the use of DDR2 on motherboards, IGP's for doing things like HDTV decoding were becoming bottlenecked by video memory, which is system memory. With DDR2 now being increasingly used for system memory, IGP's can take advantage of that, which would allow them to provide features like HDTV decoding.

Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina!

www.redcross.org

"Dude, you're utterly confusing."

You're confusing yourself. First of all as I already explained DDR and DDR2 memory makes no diff in terms of IGP preformance in which this subject is based upon. I gave you a prime example of that when I clearly explained the diff between the ATI X300 using DDR2 memory vs the ATI X300 using DDR1. If there were a diff when using an "IGP" then the ATI X300 using DDR2 would have a preofrmance increase over the ATI X300 using DDR1, but it doesn't.

The X3000 clock speed is doubled because the IGP's mhz and not, because it uses DDR2 memory.

How is that statement false when I clearly showed you that the ATI X300 using DDR2 vs the ATI X300 using DDR1 show the same results.

"Oh, you see benchmarks with the 1100 series using DDR, eh"

What?????????

What does this statement have anything to do with the X3000 vs ATI clock speed?. I never once compared the two. I was comparing the DDR2 version of the ATI X300 IGP to the DDR1 version of the ATI X300 IGP at the same GPU clock speed and regardless of the memory was being used on both IGP's it still came up as the same results. That's the point in all this. That Intels new X3000 benifits because of the new gpu clocked speed and not because it uses DDR2 memory. I mean if the memory being used was the reason then the GMA 950 using DDR2 would have surpassed ATI X300 and Nvidia 6xxx series using DDR1 in which it didn't. It came in 3rd out of all of them. In the end it boiled down to pipelines and gpu mhz speed.

As for DDR1 becoming more of a bottleneck that's not always the case you can use DDR 400 on medium time settings which yeilds the same results as DDR2 667.

This is what I was saying.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

"If there were a diff when using an "IGP" then the ATI X300 using DDR2 would have a preofrmance increase over the ATI X300 using DDR1, but it doesn't."

No, it wouldn't. That card is not fast enough to utilize DDR2. Pure and simple.

Now that everything is moving DDR2, watch what the next gen IGP's will be able to do. The X3000 is a sample of that. Watch how much the clock speed of ATI's and Nvidia's IGP's jump. It won't be a modest clock speed boost.

"The X3000 clock speed is doubled because the IGP's mhz and not, because it uses DDR2 memory."

There would have been no point in the X3000 running at that high of a clock speed without DDR2.

You have to know they could have made an IGP clocked that high well before now. They never did though partly because it was pointless until system memory acting as video memory could provide the bandwidth necessary to avoid a bottleneck.

It's quite simple to understand this. A GPU is a processor in the most simplistic terms. A processor needs memory to store data it is processing. That's where memory comes in. For a GPU, this is video memory. Especially in the case of video cards, this memory must allow rapid access to and from it for effective processing. In video, this is critical because a lack of speed would be unacceptable. You would have a reduction in FPS, or you would have to make compromises in image quality to reduce the amount of processing. This is why video cards moved to faster SDRAM, DDR, DDR2, DDR3 long before CPU's ever did.

Why do you think Cyberlink says you need a MINIMUM of 7600 series or an X1600 series which both use DDR or DDR2 memory that are far faster than normally speced DDR memory that is used for system memory in order to watch HD content?

To think that video RAM is not related to a GPU doing the processing of HDTV is ignoring the basic relationship of a processor to memory.

Without DDR2, the X3000 would not be able to decode HDTV content.

Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina!

www.redcross.org

"Now that everything is moving DDR2, watch what the next gen IGP's will be able to do. The X3000 is a sample of that. Watch how much the clock speed of ATI's and Nvidia's IGP's jump. It won't be a modest clock speed boost."

Watch what the next gen IGP's can do? What play doom 3 with a little less lag then before? LOL. It's still an IGP. I don't care if DDR4 memory was being used in it, the ram speed isn't going to improve it overall that much.

"There would have been no point in the X3000 running at that high of a clock speed without DDR2."

Of course there would have. You can have an X3000 with DDR 400 use low timings and still produce the same results as you would using DDR2 667.

"It's quite simple to understand this. A GPU is a processor in the most simplistic terms. A processor needs memory to store data it is processing. That's where memory comes in. For a GPU, this is video memory. Especially in the case of video cards, this memory must allow rapid access to and from it for effective processing. In video, this is critical because a lack of speed would be unacceptable. You would have a reduction in FPS, or you would have to make compromises in image quality to reduce the amount of processing. This is why video cards moved to faster SDRAM, DDR, DDR2, DDR3 long before CPU's ever did."

Dude we are not talking graphic cards we are talking about "IGP's" here DDR types isn't going to make a diff running IGP's to the point where you would notice. Comparing an IGP and it's use of mainboard ram compared to comparing a grpahics card and it's own set of ram is comparing apples and oranges.

"To think that video RAM is not related to a GPU doing the processing"

I never made no such claim.

"Without DDR2, the X3000 would not be able to decode HDTV content."

So you make a hypcrtical comment by saying the the X3000 needs DDR2, but yet you go on and claim.....

"X1600 series which both use DDR or DDR2 memory that are far faster than normally speced DDR memory"

Thanks for proving my point. Which and a "quote" using DDR 400 ram with low timings or higher rated DDR ram 500 or higher can do the job as well as DDR2 at 667 and even as well ass DDR2 800 with DDR 500 long with low timings. That's already been proven so therefor you don't neeed DDR2 to run HD.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

"Watch what the next gen IGP's can do? What play doom 3 with a little less lag then before? LOL. It's still an IGP. I don't care if DDR4 memory was being used in it, the ram speed isn't going to improve it overall that much."

If you think that the only thing important to the computer industry is gaming, you have an incredibly narrow view of it. I wouldn't mind my laptop for example to say...oh, I dunno...play HD content on it, even though I won't play a single game on it.

"Of course there would have. You can have an X3000 with DDR 400 use low timings and still produce the same results as you would using DDR2 667."

Then WHY WASN'T THAT EVER DONE UNTIL NOW?!?!

It would have been if it were possible. It's not like Nvidia, ATI, and Intel did not have the technology to make an IGP GPU able to do that. It simply was not possible.

"Comparing an IGP and it's use of mainboard ram compared to comparing a grpahics card and it's own set of ram is comparing apples and oranges."

Are you saying IGP's don't use RAM dedicated to video memory for the same purposes GPU's use their dedicated RAM?! My mistake, IGP's must use RAM for a totally different reason...

"Thanks for proving my point. Which and a "quote" using DDR 400 ram with low timings or higher rated DDR ram 500 or higher can do the job as well as DDR2 at 667 and even as well ass DDR2 800 with DDR 500 long with low timings. That's already been proven so therefor you don't neeed DDR2 to run HD."

LMAO!

Let's take a look as some REALLY BAD dedicated video cards, and see what speed their memory is clocked at.

How about the uber fast Geforce MX4000! OHHHHH YEAAAAAH! That is such a smokin' card.

What is it's memory running?

http://www.chaintechusa.com/tw/eng/...

Even it has 400MHz RAM. Let's take a look at the lowest Nvidia card that can decode HD content according to PowerDVD...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...

Low and behold, it's 533MHz! I do believe that's faster than 400MHz. Isn't that strange? And that's a MINIMUM!

Show me a video card that has DDR memory (running 400DDR (200Mhz x 2 = effective 400Mhz) capable of showing HD content!

Using higher rated DDR is irrelevant to this. IGP's are built to run with system RAM at stock speeds (266, 333, or 400). Therefore, as I said before, they didn't bother trying to make an IGP that could decode HD content because memory would have been a bottleneck.

Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina!

www.redcross.org

"If you think that the only thing important to the computer industry is gaming, you have an incredibly narrow view of it."

What does this have anything to do with IGP and what RAM it uses????

"Then WHY WASN'T THAT EVER DONE UNTIL NOW?!?!"

Gee I don't know because Intel moved away from DDR 3 years ago maybe.......

"Are you saying IGP's don't use RAM dedicated to video memory for the same purposes GPU's use their dedicated RAM?! My mistake, IGP's must use RAM for a totally different reason..."

What?????? WOW where did you come up with that mess. I stated it doesn't matter it's still an IGP = weaker processing unit then on a typical graphics card. This is what makes the IGP weak and not what type of RAM it uses. Case in point Nvidia Geofrce 4 TI DDR1 outbenchmarks even a Geforce 6600 that uses DDR2 RAM. And why is that gee because it has a better gpu maybe?

"LMAO!

Let's take a look as some REALLY BAD dedicated video cards, and see what speed their memory is clocked at.

How about the uber fast Geforce MX4000! OHHHHH YEAAAAAH! That is such a smokin' card.

What is it's memory running?

http://www.chaintechusa.com/tw/eng/...

Even it has 400MHz RAM. Let's take a look at the lowest Nvidia card that can decode HD content according to PowerDVD...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...

Low and behold, it's 533MHz! I do believe that's faster than 400MHz. Isn't that strange? And that's a MINIMUM!

Show me a video card that has DDR memory (running 400DDR (200Mhz x 2 = effective 400Mhz) capable of showing HD content!

Using higher rated DDR is irrelevant to this. IGP's are built to run with system RAM at stock speeds (266, 333, or 400). Therefore, as I said before, they didn't bother trying to make an IGP that could decode HD content because memory would have been a bottleneck."

Honestly are you serious? You are talking weak cards from 4 years ago. You are really reaching now. Furthermore there are DDR2 cards out there gee I don't know like the 6800 series that aren't HD compatible and low and behold they run on DDR2 ram wow imagine that. Gee you would think they would be but they aren't hmmmm.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

"Furthermore there are DDR2 cards out there gee I don't know like the 6800 series that aren't HD compatible and low and behold they run on DDR2 ram wow imagine that."

Ahh, finally something I can answer. :P
The 6800 series isn't capable of doing HD because it's not HDCP compliant. So you could run HD-DVD using a 6800 card, but it'll only output at DVD resolution.

Yes you are right it isn't but the gpu speed isn't strong enough there to produce it either. Lets take a look at something. Cyberlink in the post i made in the cpu forums clearly states that it has to be either a 7600GT or a X1600PRO or higher and not the 7600GS or X1600. Now both comes with DDR2 ram but their clock speeds our diff and even though they can support HD, they are not supported and that's because the GPU clock speeds don't reach the requirments.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

* Even though the X1600 and 7600GS support HDTV, they are not supported using HD playback by Cyberlink that that is because their gpu speed doesn't meet the requirments.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

"What does this have anything to do with IGP and what RAM it uses????"

What did playing Doom 3 have to do with HD capability?

"What?????? WOW where did you come up with that mess."

After I explained how video cards use memory, you said that was irrelevant to IGP video cards, as IGP video cards compared to dedicated video cards are "apples to oranges." That implies that my basic description of how video cards use their memory doesn't apply to IGP cards. They both work the same as far as what purpose they use memory. If they use memory for the same purpose, why are you then saying it's "apples to oranges"?! You made the mistake, not me, so don't make it sound like I'm the one making no sense.

Response 12. Read it and weap.

"Case in point Nvidia Geofrce 4 TI DDR1 outbenchmarks even a Geforce 6600 that uses DDR2 RAM."

DDR2 doesn't guarantee a card is better. It simply provides more memory bandwidth. Therefore, it reduces the chance of a bottleneck due to the RAM. A GPU running 667MHz will be bottlenecked by RAM running 400MHz effective. Sorry.

The 7950GT uses a 560MHz clocked GPU. With what RAM did they couple it? That's right, 1450MHz effective clock! Obviously, because of differences between the GPU's, I'm not suggesting the X3000 needs something like 1450MHz clocked RAM, but to think it could do without DDR2 is preposterous if it were to be able to decoding HD content.

Show me a video card with a GPU running at that speed using 400MHz DDR. Please, I'd love to see one. You won't find one because IT'S RETARDED!

In fact, here's the fastest card I could find using DDR...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...

And look at the RAM. Amazing, it's not 400MHz.

I never said it's NOT the GPU that's able to do it. I said that the widespread use of DDR2 in system motherboards has allowed IGP manufacturers to pursue making an IGP that can. Without it, it's impossible.

Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina!

www.redcross.org

Simply buy the Intel IGP X3000 when it comes out and compare with currently what you have, then you'll see =)

TMP-Man

Asus P5P800-SE PAT
P4 506 @ 4009Mhz 1.3625v
Thermaltake CLP0024 w/ 1700RPM 92MM + AS5
2GB OCZ 2-3-2-5 DDR400
120GB/300GB 7200RPM HD
Leadtek 7600GT 600/1550 VF700 ALCU AS5

LOL, agreed.

Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina!

www.redcross.org

"What did playing Doom 3 have to do with HD capability?"

You were reffering to how much better IGP's "are" going to be with next-gen ram. Thats where it came from.

It is apples to oranges anynone that knows about cards knows the gpu graphic cards are better if not much better then IGP's overall regardless of the on the ram being used due to 2 big reasons the pipe-line and the gpu speed itself.

Still the fact of the matter is the Geforce 4 TI with it's lower memor clock speed still outpreforms it and that's because of the gpu mhz speed and the pipeline. Of course not all DDR2's will surpass older cards with DDR1, but the point is DDR2 on a card doesn't make the card automaticly better.

Where are you getting this standard DDR 400mhz from. I never once stated, I stated and this will be the 3rd time already that DDR 400 with low timing and DDR 500 which are still "DDR1" can produce just as much preformance as DDR2 667 and DDR2 800 regarldess the bandwidth benchmark results come out the same thanks to their low latency's. They equal out.

Asrock makes a DDR1/DDR2 board for the Core 2 Duo, the results with DDR 400 with low timings and DDR2 677 were the same. Xbit labs had a artical on that. The point is If DDR 400 set at low timings can run as well as DDR2 667 then and their was another board that supported Core 2 Duo with DDR1/DDR2 and had the X3000 in it then there is no doubt that the GMA X3000 IGP couldn't preform at the same level as DDR2 667 in HD decoding using DDR 400 set at low timings cosidering it's the same preformance as DDR2 667.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

"It is apples to oranges anynone that knows about cards knows the gpu graphic cards are better if not much better then IGP's overall regardless of the on the ram being used due to 2 big reasons the pipe-line and the gpu speed itself."

A. I never debated that an IGP will be inferior to a dedicated GPU. Not once. So why are you bringing it up?
B. Therefore, you went off topic.

"Of course not all DDR2's will surpass older cards with DDR1, but the point is DDR2 on a card doesn't make the card automaticly better."

Thanks for restating what I already said. It alleviated the possibility of a bottleneck.

"I stated and this will be the 3rd time already that DDR 400 with low timing and DDR 500 which are still "DDR1" can produce just as much preformance as DDR2 667 and DDR2 800 regarldess the bandwidth benchmark results come out the same thanks to their low latency's. They equal out."

And you are ignoring that DDR500 has NEVER been used as a standard speed for ANY motherboard or CPU. Officially supported speed for DDR has gone as high as 400MHz for processors.

When Intel exceeded 200MHz actual bus speed clock (800Mhz quadpumped), they IMMEDIATELY jumped to DDR2.

Also, no DDR motherboard has ever forced someone to buy DDR with low latency. An IGP motherboard that would require that simply wouldn't sell. IGP's are a way to economize and lower the system price. You're making absolutely no sense.

Which costs less - DDR2 memory or PC5000 memory? DDR2 by a long shot. It is expensive and difficult to produce DDR memory that can perform as well as DDR2.

That's why neither of those were ever even considered to be used for system memory in mass volume.

Why on earth are you bringing this up?!

"Asrock makes a DDR1/DDR2 board for the Core 2 Duo, the results with DDR 400 with low timings and DDR2 677 were the same. Xbit labs had a artical on that."

Processors have never needed the kind of memory bandwidth video cards have had. That is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

"The point is If DDR 400 set at low timings can run as well as DDR2 667 then and their was another board that supported Core 2 Duo with DDR1/DDR2 and had the X3000 in it then there is no doubt that the GMA X3000 IGP couldn't preform at the same level as DDR2 667 in HD decoding using DDR 400 set at low timings cosidering it's the same preformance as DDR2 667."

First of all, I hardly understand what you're trying to say, but I'm guessing at what you're getting at.

A. If you are suggesting that low timing DDR memory could do it, you're actually supporting my side. Low timing would increase memory throughput. That implies memory bandwidth IS in fact related. Thanks for that.
B. Once again, for the third time, IGP based boards are designed to be economical. They will not ever require the use of specialized memory that costs more than inexpensive memory that is readily available. DDR2 is less expensive now than DDR, let alone DDR that can run at faster clock speeds, or has very low latency.
C. Does a motherboard utilizing the X3000 IGP exist that accepts DDR? Sounds like no. You cannot claim what it would perform like then.

Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina!

www.redcross.org

Not going off topic and there is no mistake about it you kept on comparing igp and the memory for it. I kept on saying it has everything that mostly involes pipelines and gpu speed.

No kidding DDR 500 hasn't been used as a normal speed it's an OC type of ram that statement was referring to the capablities still left in DDR and how it's isn't dead at all, because with a little bit of tweaking you can achive DDR2's preformance.

"Also, no DDR motherboard has ever forced someone to buy DDR with low latency. An IGP motherboard that would require that simply wouldn't sell. IGP's are a way to economize and lower the system price. You're making absolutely no sense."

I'm making no sense dude your whole statement makes no sense. Where did I ever state this? I can see why things make no sense when you are overreading what's there in the first place. That whole statement was about IGP and lower timings DDR 400 timings to match that of DDR2 667.

You can match the preformance of DDR2 ram with DDR 400 that's already been proven.

That begining statement was part of the whole last paragraph.

Thanks for supporting your side?? LOL what i've been saying that the whole time about low timings on DDR 400.

This has nothing to do with whether or not they would support it, that last statement was an example of how it would make no diff if you lowerd the timings.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

"Not going off topic and there is no mistake about it you kept on comparing igp and the memory for it."

Well, yeah. That's sorta the point here. The X3000 is clocked far higher than any other IGP out there. Therefore, it NEEDS DDR2 to be effective. Your point of fast DDR is irrelevant since you just admitted it could never be used in mass volume because it's too expensive.

"This has nothing to do with whether or not they would support it, that last statement was an example of how it would make no diff if you lowerd the timings."

It does have everything to do with it. Why would any IGP maker design an IGP for a DDR motherboard that would bottleneck with anything but DDR500 or low latency DDR400?!

Answer: They wouldn't, and they didn't. No IGP running on a DDR motherboard is even remotely close to the clock speed of the X3000. The X3000 is clocked at over 50% more than the next fastest IGP.

It has EVERTHING to do with this. You can say DDR low latency, etc. can match the performance of DDR2, but again, IGP were never designed around that fact because it would be infeasible to use such memory in mass volume. So again, IRRELEVANT!

"Thanks for supporting your side?? LOL what i've been saying that the whole time about low timings on DDR 400."

Again, if it would help, it implies normal DDR400 would bottleneck it. Since IGP makers would NEVER design around that RAM due to how expensive it is, they didn't do it. Only until DDR2 was readily used for system memory do you see significantly faster IGP's capable of HD. That's no coincidence.

Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina!

www.redcross.org

This has nothing to do with Irrevelenvantcy or not. When I started using IGP DDR 500 and DDR 400 with low timings in my statement, I was giving an example where did you miss that? I mean, anyone that was reading this could pick up that those 2 were just examples given. I stated and that in "theroy" DDR 400 with low timings could match the preformance of DDR2 667 and how that would not effect HD playback because of it. Niether one of us pro it or dissprove that, that's not the point. My point was that DDR can still hold its ground and with low timings it could in theory be used in HD playback with no bottleneck.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

"My point was that DDR can still hold its ground and with low timings it could in theory be used in HD playback with no bottleneck."

What does that matter?

How are you missing this very crucial point:

IGP's were not designed to be so fast they would bottleneck run of the mill DDR400. The reason is it would be pointless to do so. There simply wasn't a push to make IGP's more powerful until DDR2 was used predominantly in system builds.

You're talking about how DDR COULD provide for as much memory throughput as DDR2. But it would require specialized DDR.

IGP based motherboards NEVER have and probably never will require specialized, expensive, and not readily available system memory.

Therefore, IGP's weren't made to be fast enough to do things like decode HD. It would have been pointless.

I also want to point out that it's no coincidence Intel was the first to do it. Why? Quite simple - Intel for quite some time was the only major IGP producer who made motherboard chipsets that run only with DDR2 since Intel chipsets are designed to run exclusively with Intel processors, which use DDR2. ATI and Nvidia, while both have IGP solutions that can use DDR2, those very same IGP's are put on motherboards using DDR because they make motherboard chipsets for use with both AMD and Intel processors, and AMD had been using DDR until the release of AM2 socket motherboards. Therefore, ATI and Nvidia have not at this point designed an IGP this fast because it would cost more money for development, and only fairly recently have AMD processors used DDR2, so those companies could capitalize on development of such an IGP for use with both.

Now, with new AMD and Intel processors both using DDR2, watch what the next ATI and Nvidia IGP's will be able to do - HD!

It's again not a coincidence.

"I stated and that in "theroy" DDR 400 with low timings could match the preformance of DDR2 667 and how that would not effect HD playback because of it."

Find a motherboard with IGP that uses DDR400 and can do HD. Just one. In fact, find a dedicated video card that uses DDR400 that can do HD. JUST ONE!

Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina!

www.redcross.org

Yes the GMA 900 and GMA 945 are just soo much faster cause they use DDR2. LOL.

Are you seirous? LOL. this isn't 2003. You honestly think after 3 years you will find a mid-range grapahics card still using DDR???? When the card companies moved away from DDR from their mainstream lines 3 years ago. All you can do is give me speculation. Where is your facts that claim DDR 400 can't run HD video? None.

And you honestly think that Nividia or ATI 1 1/2 years ago was going to stick HD playback in 60-100 dollar boards when hignend graphics cards using DDR2 didn't even have them yet? LOL.

Dude you can say whatever you want but all it is is your own personal assumptions with no facts to back any of it up. Atleast I admit mine was in theory.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

If you still think the IGP is good, I don't see why you bother to buy that 7900GT of yours :O

TMP-Man

Asus P5P800-SE PAT
P4 506 @ 4009Mhz 1.3625v
Thermaltake CLP0024 w/ 1700RPM 92MM + AS5
2GB OCZ 2-3-2-5 DDR400
120GB/300GB 7200RPM HD
Leadtek 7600GT 600/1550 VF700 ALCU AS5

LOL, what? Where you coming up with that?

I'm not the one saying IGP's can become powerful because they can use DDR2 now.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

Find a motherboard with IGP that uses DDR400 and can do HD. Just one. In fact, find a dedicated video card that uses DDR400 that can do HD. JUST ONE!

The fact that there aren't any...that's not a fact? *scratching head*

TMP-Man, I'm not saying this IGP will exceed the performance of a good dedicated video card. I'm saying it is substantially more powerful than previous generation IGP's. 667MHz clock speed vs. 400MHz clock speed!

"Yes the GMA 900 and GMA 945 are just soo much faster cause they use DDR2. LOL."

DDR2 offers the additional bandwidth an IGP would need if it were to be able to do HD. An IGP maker does not have to utilize that bandwidth if it isn't disgned to.

Your argument about IGP's out there that use DDR2 but can't do HD is irrelevant. Find an IGP based motherboard OR a dedicated graphics card using DDR400 that can do HD, and the argument is over. It's that simple.

Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina!

www.redcross.org

Again why would they put HD on 1 1/2 year old IGP when they didn't even put them on the best DDR2 gpus out that time? If they didn't put them on a 400 dollar graphics cards at that time then their would have been no way that they were going to put them on an IGP.

HD is fairly new to pc's. When they designed the 61xx IGP's and the ATI X300 IGP's HD was a good 1 1/2 year away from debuting on pc's.

Furthermore you won't be able to find an IGP that can use HD using DDR 400 because the last design of an IGP that used DDR was 1 1/2 years ago. It's not because they can't it's because AMD moved away from DDR, so what would have been the point for ATI or Nvidia to produce another IGP when Socket 939 the last socket to use DDR was about to get retired??????

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

Nice dodging of the fact you can't find a dedicated video card with DDR400 that can do HD either. LOL...

"How many squirrels had to die to make you look fly?!"

Are you serious? LOL, I’m not dodging any question. The only cards that fully support HD are mid-highend DDR2 cards over 200 dollars that came out within the last year. Not even meduim-lowend DDR2 cards support HD. Lets take it a step further not even highend DDR2 cards that are only a 1 1/2 old support HD at all. It’s because HD "TECHNOLOGY" wasn't there yet for pc’s.

Your not going to find a mid-highend DDR graphics card anymore because gpu companies moved on to DDR2 with their mid-highend cards almost 3 years ago, and it's only been until recently that HD was implemented into mid-highend DDR2 cards.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

"it's only been until recently that HD was implemented into mid-highend DDR2 cards."

Because doing it isn't trivial, and takes quite a bit of horsepower to do it!

Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina!

www.redcross.org

It's because HD wasn't around until recently for pc's.

I mean if a GMA X3000 can run HD but can barely play games like BF2 then what are the chances that a top of the line Nvidia 6800 that can play BF2 fine wouldn't be able to run HD on it. I'm sure if HD for pc's was around back then the top of the line 6800's would also have HD on them.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

Just to case and point my last statement.

http://answers.google.com/answers/t...

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

"I mean if a GMA X3000 can run HD but can barely play games like BF2 then what are the chances that a top of the line Nvidia 6800 that can play BF2 fine wouldn't be able to run HD on it."

Playing games well has much more to do with drivers being optimized, having more pixel shaders, etc.

Just number of pixel shaders explains how the 6800 would trounce the X3000 in games. Pixel shaders have nothing to do with HD ability.

Gotta be honest, I'm growing weary of this debate.

Please help survivors of Hurricane Katrina!

www.redcross.org

The gpu power alone in the 6800 could run HD. We will never know in paper because simply there will be no HD version of the 6800, but looking at all of the specs on the 6800 I wouldn't see why it couldn't in theory if the technology for HD on pc's was there at the time.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

I don't know what to say but memory bandwidth is the critical factor to HD, not the GPU design itself; the point is the x3000 can utilize the memory bandwidth, while it might suck in games because of the design itself (weak hardware T&L, shaders, whatever), it still can do HD.

It's simply not possible or not good enough for a chip to do HD if it does not have the memory bandwidth. Yes, HD capability is bottlenecked by memory bandwidth, not its 3D capability. Let alone the 3D capability. The 2D of X3000 is just as good as many GPU out there.