Please throw some light on the benefits that an ISV would get if he opts for the below tasks for Integrated Graphics.
1. Run without rendering artifacts
2. Improved performance through hardware geometry processing
3. Use Direct X 9.0
4. Intel Graphics with G965 and above should be included in the supported graphics adapters list, if any
5. Run on Intel Graphics at resolution and frame rate for acceptable playability (800X600 at 15 fps or better)
testintelpartner:1. Run without rendering artifacts
That is a very difficult task. For Linux there exists the free OpenGL implementation Mesa. The latest XFree.Org driver developed by intel replace some of the Mesa code by hardware accelerated code resulting in accelerated OpenGL. However if you look at the result, you will find plenty of bugs. E.g. by testing with compiz-fusion or some other "simple" OpenGL application.Even since Intel release free documentation:
The task to write some 3D acceleration without rendering artifacts remains difficult and requires high testing affords: Plenty of games would have to be tested and the 3D driver would have to work around bugs in particular games. Just browse the Changelog of the driver releases for nVidia Forceware. Each driver revision contains various fixes to some games.
testintelpartner:2. Improved performance through hardware geometry processing
It remains an open question whether hardware geometry processing improves performance. The transformation step of geometry data is NOT very computation intensive. If the hardware (as the intel X3000, X3100 etc.) is inferior compared to the Dual-Core CPU that in general is used in conjunction with these integrated gfx chipsets, than it mide be performance wise more benefitial to off-load geometry processing to the CPU.This goes back to a discussion about the GeForce2 MX-200 chipset that included T&L (sorry automated german -> english translation):
There exist some games, whose performance dropped on intel X3100 when going from Software -> Hardware T&L:
testintelpartner:3. Use Direct X 9.0
The questions of DX9 vs. DX10 is not a performance question. It's a compatibility question. This seems to be very similar to Hardware T&L: On intel chipsets you will go for Hardware T&L because of application compatibility for those that insist on a hardware T&L engine, but not because of perforamance. With DX10 it's similar: You go there because of compatiblity.
If the average fps is 15, you won't be able to play the game. The minimum fps will go down to 7 fps and the maximum probably up to 30 fps. If the monster kills you in the 7 fps scene, you won't have much fun playing that game.testintelpartner:5. Run on Intel Graphics at resolution and frame rate for acceptable playability (800X600 at 15 fps or better)
7oby, thanks for your excellent responses.
To the OP: This question looks like it's forwarded from somebody working in the Intel Software Partner Program, and is not directly from the developer. What we'd be curious to know is whether this is more of a general technical inquiry, or whether this is actually a question about the enabling benefits of being a member (in which case ISN Support probably isn't the right group to help). Please encourage the developer to come out to this page and post in person, and we'll be glad to provide any details we can.