Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Support for Intel Graphics

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
    #1

    Support for Intel Graphics

    I've googled silly this morning, can't find that reference page for Intel Graphics on K(U)buntu.

    I want to know if Kubuntu 14.04 THROUGH 18.04 supports the Intel Integrated Graphics for:

    Intel® Core™ i7-7700K Processor
    Intel® HD Graphics 630

    https://ark.intel.com/products/97129...up-to-4_50-GHz

    (i.e., no discreet graphics card to be used; graphics supplied by just the Intel CPU on-board HD Graphics 630.)
    An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way. Charles Bukowski
    Tags: None
    • Top
    • Bottom
    #2
    it should, like most all recent Intel graphics, use the i915 driver. I have a 8250U i5 in my new laptop, which is the 8th Gen Kaby Lake, but it has the UHD 620, as opposed to your HD 630. Both gpus are gt2 graphics, so I assume yours is supported, else there would be many reports of it not. Mine runs fine.


    Intel do not make it easy, as often they rename things even though they are the same thing, on top of just plain obfuscation. When I was choosing a laptop, I really wanted to go with an i7, because you know, MOAR KORES of course. Then I somehow spotted the fact that all the mobile i7s cpus are 2-core, with i5 only differing mainly in speed, and maybe L3 cache. So I went browsing at i5s so i could stay in my budget. Thankfully, the 8th Gen i7 and i5 laptop chips went back to quad core design, and the i5 kept things within my budget.
    • Top
    • Bottom

    Comment

      #3
      Most intell GPUs are supported in Linux so you should be good to go.
      Dave Kubuntu 20.04 Registered Linux User #462608

      Wireless Script: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.p...5#post12350385
      • Top
      • Bottom

      Comment

        #4
        I wasn't sure if Linux support lagged quite a bit. However, the Intel site does brag up their Linux support. Thanks claydoh and kc1di.

        claydoh, I also always try to save money. Looks like I need to build a PC from scratch, starting with the motherboard. And since everything--mobo, CPU, memory--needs to be compatible, well, it kind of presses you toward certain choices. I have some DDR2 memory that won't go into a DDR3 board, for example. I'm still looking at this as I have time, but things point this time at an i7, which I'm not crazy about paying $300 forit's the most expensive component in the mainstream system.
        An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way. Charles Bukowski
        • Top
        • Bottom

        Comment

          #5
          My i7-6700 reports HD Graphics 530 (rev 06), and it works really well for me (I don't game). So certainly from 16.04. Before that, I imagine there'd be a backport for newer kernels in 14.04 if you had problems.

          There's speculation that Intel haven't been working on its HD graphics much, because of the deal with AMD (ahem, sorry, Radeon) to package a Vega chip with their 8th gen processors.
          Regards, John Little
          • Top
          • Bottom

          Comment

            #6
            The last computer I built out of parts was around 2005, and it was a desktop. I would never consider building a laptop out of components. $300 for an i7 four core (8 threads) 2.9GHz CPU is still a bargain IF you have at least 8GB of RAM, web cam, USB 3 ports, etc...

            Here is a list of computer between $300 and $600 that fill that bill and you don't have to put them together.
            https://www.amazon.com/s/gp/search/r...nid=3012494011
            "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
            – John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.
            • Top
            • Bottom

            Comment

              #7
              Originally posted by claydoh View Post
              it should, like most all recent Intel graphics, use the i915 driver. I have a 8250U i5 in my new laptop, which is the 8th Gen Kaby Lake, but it has the UHD 620, as opposed to your HD 630. Both gpus are gt2 graphics, so I assume yours is supported, else there would be many reports of it not. Mine runs fine.

              Intel do not make it easy, as often they rename things even though they are the same thing, on top of just plain obfuscation. When I was choosing a laptop, I really wanted to go with an i7, because you know, MOAR KORES of course. Then I somehow spotted the fact that all the mobile i7s cpus are 2-core, with i5 only differing mainly in speed, and maybe L3 cache. So I went browsing at i5s so i could stay in my budget. Thankfully, the 8th Gen i7 and i5 laptop chips went back to quad core design, and the i5 kept things within my budget.
              I have an HP probook with the i5-8250u

              Graphics works fine though I'm on 18.04 beta.

              Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk
              • Top
              • Bottom

              Comment

                #8
                I don't mean to be "that guy", but I have to ask: It would seem in this day and age that if you were trying to build a budget PC and get the most cores and MHZ's possible with full support and ease-of-use without ever worrying about proprietary drivers, why wouldn't you go with AMD? This has been My Philosophy for 2 years now and although only my opinion, I will only buy AMD GPUs and CPUs and I don't see that opinion changing anytime soon. I'm genuinely curious about this.
                ​"Keep it between the ditches"
                K*Digest Blog
                K*Digest on Twitter
                • Top
                • Bottom

                Comment

                  #9
                  dequire, well, THAT is the classic divide and subject for pro-and-con discussion, isn't it? You can google on the subject--AMD versus Intel, "which is better AMD or Intel," etc.--and get all sorts of responses, studies, tests, arguments, and opinions (and you know they say about opinions!).

                  Since 2005, I've stuck with Intel on three builds, it works, support is good, compatibility (e.g., w/ASUS and the likes) is good, and so on -- no problems. I've always built not "budget" but "mainstream, non-gamer, and have done well. People I deal with, tech/engineer friends and such, also stick with Intel, so that makes for an adequate 'support.' IOW, if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
                  An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way. Charles Bukowski
                  • Top
                  • Bottom

                  Comment

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Qqmike View Post
                    dequire, well, THAT is the classic divide and subject for pro-and-con discussion, isn't it? You can google on the subject--AMD versus Intel, "which is better AMD or Intel," etc.--and get all sorts of responses, studies, tests, arguments, and opinions (and you know they say about opinions!).

                    Since 2005, I've stuck with Intel on three builds, it works, support is good, compatibility (e.g., w/ASUS and the likes) is good, and so on -- no problems. I've always built not "budget" but "mainstream, non-gamer, and have done well. People I deal with, tech/engineer friends and such, also stick with Intel, so that makes for an adequate 'support.' IOW, if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
                    That's a fair and honest response. Thanks for sharing.
                    ​"Keep it between the ditches"
                    K*Digest Blog
                    K*Digest on Twitter
                    • Top
                    • Bottom

                    Comment

                    Previous template Next
                    Working...
                    X