Unsigned driver for Intel HD Graphics

[UCyborg]

3 hours ago, j7n said:

Also 700 MB for a display driver. Lol.

Current AMD driver install package is cca. 770 MB.

[superleiw]

20 hours ago, j7n said:

What are the certificates in the Reg file with boxes as the filename? That looks a bit sus and should be clearly labelled..

Also 700 MB for a display driver. Lol.

It's an unsigned driver and it needs the certificate to be imported first for the driver to be seen as valid.

But useless anyway for your hardware like you said.

 

700 MB is normal nowadays, Nvidia is pretty much the same there.

To keep in perspective though, yea 700 MB is one whole CD-R !

[j7n]

I think the CAT file includes all the stuff, so nothing can be taken out to de-bloat the driver without Windows throwing a fit. On Nvidia and such you can skip the supplemental applications and frameworks like Experience and PhysX and the ATI Control Center or whatever it is called now. In the past I would always take out all the languages. These days even an INF may be 2 MB because everything is translated into Unicode in there. I put this driver into my collection. Maybe it will come useful for something.

BTW, does anyone know a small and simple GPU benchmark tool that is compatible with old systems. The new stuff is very flashy for gamers. Something like AIDA64 where you run it for a few seconds and it tells your memory bandwidth and processor speed. I'm curious where Intel HD Graphics sit compared to entry level GPUs.

[D.Draker]

16 hours ago, j7n said:

does anyone know a small and simple GPU benchmark tool that is compatible with old systems.

The famous French Furmark by Jerome Guinot. But don't run for long.

"FurMark is a powerful and popular benchmarking tool for testing the capabilities of your GPU."

https://furmark.en.lo4d.com/windows

[Karla Sleutel]

On 10/31/2024 at 3:38 AM, j7n said:

Intel Graphics on Ivy Bridge

Would be about the level of nVidia G210, at best,

[D.Draker]

"The GeForce G210 is better than Intel HD2000 integrated graphics, but neither are worth using for playing games"

https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/intel-hd-graphics-2000-vs-nvidia-geforce-210.1753057/

[D.Draker]

21 hours ago, j7n said:

skip the supplemental applications and frameworks like Experience and PhysX

Not advisable. PhysX is needed for old games.

[D.Draker]

22 hours ago, j7n said:

Nvidia and such you can skip the supplemental

After you install the driver, can safely delete both nvcompiler s from windows.

both nvptxjitcompiler (s) also.

[D.Draker]

13 hours ago, Karla Sleutel said:

Would be about the level of nVidia G210, at best,

Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) vs NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS

https://hitesti.com/compare/gpu/intel-hd-graphics-ivy-bridge-vs-nvidia-geforce-8400-gs

[punker_4_real]

On 11/16/2024 at 11:38 AM, j7n said:

That's not for me. It is for Skylake and Kaby Lake.

What are the certificates in the Reg file with boxes as the filename? That looks a bit sus and should be clearly labelled..

Also 700 MB for a display driver. Lol.

biostar has been making motherboards for decades..  ATI is like 1,5GB uncompressed  NVIDIA is 1GB  

Edited November 20, 2024 by punker_4_real

[D.Draker]

On 11/19/2024 at 9:28 PM, punker_4_real said:

biostar has been making motherboards for decades..  ATI is like 1,5GB uncompressed  NVIDIA is 1GB  

I second that, Biostar's quality is OK now. It's not Fujitsu Siemens, of course. More like a rather very budget segment.

I have A Biostar with H110 and a Kabylake chip, works very well. Soldering job is very good.

[j7n]

I have found useful benchmarking software. Here is 3DMark '03 with a serial number. One of the tests is fillrate which directly measures the speed of rendering.

https://benchmarks.ul.com/legacy-benchmarks

Ivy Bridge graphics are slightly worse than GT 610. There is no support for video decoding. YV12 upsampling is nearest neighbor. It can do one HD video with CABAC on the CPU, so it is usable. But GT 610 can do at least two HD videos for free, and reds are smooth in all. (It can be worked around with a CPU hit by selecting only RGB32 for output.)

Ivy Bridge: 9600 marks, fill rate 1900/3600 Mtexels. = No difference between the "new" and the 2013 driver on Win 7 (15.33.8.3345).

GT 610: 11000 marks, fill rate 1200/5000 Mtexels

GTX 750Ti: 58000 marks (cpu bound), fill rate 16000/43000 Mtexels

GTX 960:  92000 marks, fill rate 33000/67000 Mtexels

There is a little oddity comparing "CPU Score" in 3DMark '03 and '05. It supposedly describes the portion of the work done by the CPU while rendering a low res picture. It might be an artifact of the program, but occurs on multiple runs. It seems that Windows Seven works significantly better.

Windows 2003 x86 SP2: 841 marks ('03), 2975 marks ('05).

Windows 2008 x64 SP1: 2175 marks ('03), 16525 marks ('05)

Windows 2022 x64 Oct 24: 241 marks ('03), 847 marks ('05)

I have now put in a GTX960 as a useful upgrade. These can be had for surprisingly cheap now and run cool while idle. And only need 1  6-pin power. Apparently the last cards with a VGA out, which is always useful as a backup when you have no other monitor on hand.

PhysX has no business being in a work computer. If I have about 20 various games, it's likely none of them will require PhysX. It is therefore a good idea not to install it by default.