Intel HD Graphics Users Rejoice

[rsc204 21,808]

As part of my testing of NAM 35, which has been relegated to running a test setup on my PC, I've come across some interesting news. In short, to try and diagnose some hardware problems, I've had to switch back to using the HD4600 graphics (4th Generation Haswell i7) from Intel and remove my dedicated NVidia GPU. After having the usual problems running Direct X, i.e. hideously glitchy graphics problems. I updated the video driver to the latest version 153631.4414 on the Download Section of Intel's website, otherwise showing as 10.18.14.4414 in Windows Device Manager, Driver Date 23rd March 2016. Would you believe it, Direct X Rendering under Win7 64-bit with an Intel integrated GPU .

So if like me, you were one of those suffering with Intel graphics (in my case I added the NVidia GPU to overcome it), you should now be able to get it working with a driver update. No more software rendering, woohoo!!! I'm off to test some HD terrain mods and see if those work, but there is no reason they shouldn't.

:Update:

Indeed there are no problems using HD mods, nor can I find any bugs from using these drivers. That said, I will be back using my NVidia GPU eventually, because there is a significant performance penalty using the Intel GPU with SC4. That may or may not affect your personal game, it really depends on how you play. I've a city stuffed full of HD content and Seasonal Trees, and performance is impacted by the lesser GPU hardware. However, running smaller cities or those without all the additional eye-candy, which place less strain on the GPU, work amazingly well.

To sum up, that's precisely the point of the Integrated graphics. A solution that allows you to play games without additional hardware, provided you aren't looking for all the bells and whistles.

:2023 Further Update:

DirectX (DX) Wrappers are something that only surfaced within the last few years, which is good because a lot of moderns cards struggle to use DX out of the box these days. Anyhow, I ran a further test using dgVoodoo2 with the HD4600 and the performance issues are gone, so clearly somewhere in Intel GPU/Drivers there were some compatibility issues a DX Wrapper can fix.

Obviously results may vary with different Intel GPUs, different versions of Windows and DirectX, but I an confident of the following. Generally speaking, Intel GPU users can get satisfactory performance with SC4, by using a DX Wrapper to overcome the lack of backwards compatibility with DirectX 7. Personally I have tried a 1st gen Intel HD Graphics on an i5 laptop and it can't really keep up with the game, but a HD4000 or later card should be just fine. Note sure on HD3000 series cards, they always do seem to be trouble, but I would give a wrapper a try, you've nothing to loose. Step by step walkthough on how to setup dgVoodoo2 with SC4 can be found here.

[matias93 7,535]

This sounds promising! I'll give a try with my Intel HD4000, but the version numbers seem to have no relation between them, so it can be totally different.

With my current driver (9.17.10.2843) the game works on hardware mode, and runs HD props and textures apropiately, but has glitches with transparency (typical seafoam stuck on the screen) and shadows' rendering is inhabilitatingly slow (only good for screenshots). Surely any improvements will come from avoiding the transparency glitches, shadows are still too difficult.

EDIT: Updated to the most recent supported driver allowed by Lenovo (10.18.10.4276), and at a first glance, transparency glitches have disappeared. I'll check more extensively with shadows and automatas soon, but the first impression is that indeed Intel did a good job with retrocompatibility this time. It would be great if some of you could check this on other Intel chips. In any case, a safety measure is to get a backup of the installer of the previous, working driver. No one wants to lose usability because of a test.

EDIT 2: it seems that shadow s' rendering has improved too. I have no big city by now to test it's endurance with high memory usage, but medium tiles work fluidly even with high quality shadows.

  Edited October 25, 2016 by matias93  
Partial results

[Compdude787 916]

Yaaaay!!!

[Prophet42 1,501]

My computer is running Windows 7 Pro 64 bit and I have an integraged Intel HD 4400 graphics card.  I have been using the latest graphics driver available from HP for my computer for the last two years (version 10.18.10.3621).  I can use OpenGL with little issue.  However, if I switch to DirectX then I have graphics issues.  Mainly black triangles and transparency issues.  The game is basically unplayable under DirectX.  The only issue I have with OpenGL is that some of the HD automata I have tried to use show bright, blocky colors.  So far it has only been an issue with the automata and not any HD buildings or flora.

This post did get me interested in trying to update my graphics driver to see if I could start using DirectX.  I downloaded the Intel Driver Update Utility, installed and ran it.  It did indicate that there was an new graphics driver available but would not let me install it.  Basically it stated that my current driver was custom from HP and it would not allow me to install over it and warned that if you did install the generic driver, some functionality may be lost.

Next step would be to manually install the newest driver and see if I could use DirectX then.  However I have not done this yet (still deciding if I want to go through the risk and trouble).  If I do decide to manually install the driver, I will definitely make a system image before doing so. 

If anybody is interested, the latest Intel graphics driver for Windows 7 64 bit, 4th generation processor, HD 4400 graphics is 15.36.31.4414 dated 5/13/2016.  If you go to the Intel website, it is quite easy to find the latest drivers for your processor and operating system.

[matias93 7,535]

1 minute ago, Prophet42 said:

My computer is running Windows 7 Pro 64 bit and I have an integraged Intel HD 4400 graphics card.  I have been using the latest graphics driver available from HP for my computer for the last two years (version 10.18.10.3621).  I can use OpenGL with little issue.  However, if I switch to DirectX then I have graphics issues.  Mainly black triangles and transparency issues.  The game is basically unplayable under DirectX.  The only issue I have with OpenGL is that some of the HD automata I have tried to use show bright, blocky colors.  So far it has only been an issue with the automata and not any HD buildings or flora.

This post did get me interested in trying to update my graphics driver to see if I could start using DirectX.  I downloaded the Intel Driver Update Utility, installed and ran it.  It did indicate that there was an new graphics driver available but would not let me install it.  Basically it stated that my current driver was custom from HP and it would not allow me to install over it and warned that if you did install the generic driver, some functionality may be lost.

Next step would be to manually install the newest driver and see if I could use DirectX then.  However I have not done this yet (still deciding if I want to go through the risk and trouble).  If I do decide to manually install the driver, I will definitely make a system image before doing so. 

If anybody is interested, the latest Intel graphics driver for Windows 7 64 bit, 4th generation processor, HD 4400 graphics is 15.36.31.4414 dated 5/13/2016.  If you go to the Intel website, it is quite easy to find the latest drivers for your processor and operating system.  But be warned...messing with drivers could have disastrous consequences

Same issue here, manual installation won't work either (sends empty error messages). Go to the manufacturer site and download the approved driver instead. Remember in any case to keep a backup of the current driver in case something goes wrong. Good luck!

[rsc204 21,808]

I don't have a manufacturer, well unless you count me, so I'm free to download/install whatever.

Honestly, I find it hard to know exactly what customisation a vendor might need to make to a driver. At the end of the day, you don't have a custom chip, it's the same one every other Intel user will have. So whilst there may be software functions somehow linked to the manufacturer's driver. If you don't actually have a second dedicated GPU that runs in tandem, I really cannot see what difference it could have at a hardware level. The reason a second chip might be key, is because such customisations could vastly change how the two GPUs inter-operate. On a software level, a given application would need to be built around such customisations to take advantage of them.

So in reality, any application not from the vendor itself, cannot take advantage of such customisations. Do you really think for example that Adobe is making special HP/Intel optimised code for Photoshop? They aren't, neither are any other application developers, that would be too fragmented to make commercial sense. So like with all software development, they have to work with drivers which themselves independently must take over the heavy lifting. You make the software work with the driver layer, either Windows or DirectX/OpenGL etc, but the actual driver dictates the performance. How are HP going to optimise a driver so the same Intel chip works better on your system over say a Lenovo system? Unless they are overclocking the GPU, at the expense of the CPU, I can't see how it would be possible. After all, it's Intel that create and optimise the drivers which would form the basis of any manufactures changes. Such customisations logically are therefore only beneficial for dedicated Apps made by the same vendor to take advantage of any optimisations from their modifications to Intel's codebase. Since I can't imagine HP, or other vendors, include graphics-intensive Apps with their machines, I would say from my knowledge, this warning is bunk.

It's like when you use Android, Google Release an update for your phone. Usually one that improves the OS and makes it more secure. But, perhaps your phone manufacture doesn't want you to have the update. Not only do they have no commercial incentive to spend development costs, making the update available to you. But actually, there is an incentive in forcing you to buy new hardware to take advantage of such software improvements. Add on top of this, say the manufacturer updates the software, but then your mobile carrier decides they won't. Because they've filled your device with crapware (like PC vendors do), which serves their interests. Once more, they have no commercial incentive to spend money supporting the update. It's a big mess and you as the consumer gets screwed out of security updates. The solution: root your phone, loose the warranty and customisations, but regain control of your device.

It's therefore quite sad and shocking to hear that Windows (MS), Intel and vendors are bringing this shoddy practise to what was once an open-system. Sounds to me like the atypical problems of 3rd party vendors who do not bother to keep drivers updated. Ruining your ability to get the optimal experience from the available improvements in drivers. You can force the install, by extracting the actual drivers and manually pointing Windows to them. Installing such drivers won't break anything. But if you are worried, create a system restore point before proceeding. If something goes wrong, you can use System Restore to go back to the point before the change. That way, without the rooting problems of Android, you can see for yourself if this warning is actually just a red herring, or in your best interests as a user. Of course, many people will be so scared by the message, you won't be able to get them to see the reality. Just like when faced with the prospect of rooting a phone, most users will simply accept what is being forced down their throats.

The reality is that the latest driver, even without customisations, will almost always be the best solution for you. How often do you hear, "try updating the drivers", given as a possible solution? Anyone who's used computers for a while, should know drivers evolve, and whilst sometimes an older one can be best. In more than 99% of cases, newer drivers are the best solution. They not only resolve issues, often caused by sub-optimal driver code, related to the desire to rush products to market. But PC's and software are dynamic, things change and new drivers are the only way to keep on top of new developments. Keeping up to date with the drivers, helps to keep your hardware running optimally, with less errors and additional capabilities.

[Prophet42 1,501]

@rsc204 - seems I have struck a nerve.  It seems like more and more large electronics corporations are trying to take control away from the end user.  I do not like the 'we know what's better for you' attitude they seem to have.  I do not like how Windows 10 forces the all or nothing updates on you and basically says 'trust us, we are not spying you'.  One reason I stayed with Windows 7 on my computer is so I could choose which downloads I want, when I want them.  That is how I avoided the whole 'Get Windows 10' fiasco.  Now they are even trying to take that away with the cumilative updates for 7 and 8.  I'm now forced to bypass Windows Update and go get the 'Security Only' updates from the Windows Update Catalog.  When I buy a computer or other device it is mine.  I should have full control over the device to be able to update it how I see fit, and contol any data that is sent back to the OEMs.

Anyway..enough of my rant and back on topic.

A quick update.  I did manage to update the graphics driver to the latest Intel driver.  The driver version from Intel is 15.36.31.4414 dated 5/13/2016.  Once the driver was installed, the version was reported as 10.18.14.4414.  I did a test with SC4 using OpenGL and it worked as before.  Then I switched to DirectX and....perfect!!  No black triangles or transperency issues.  I will do some further testing to make sure there are no issues, but for now it seems to be working great.  Now I can go forth and download all HD content without fear.

In case anybody is interested there is a video on youtube that shows how to manually update the driver on an HP machine (which mine is)

[matias93 7,535]

2 hours ago, Prophet42 said:

The driver version from Intel is 15.36.31.4414 dated 5/13/2016.  Once the driver was installed, the version was reported as 10.18.14.4414.

Again same thing: it seems that there are two drivers there, the graphics controller on one part, and some 'Intel audio for screens' thing that has its own version numbers, and the combination of both has another series of version numbers.

[rsc204 21,808]

It might sound odd, but these days graphics cards need to have audio hardware and drivers. This is because as part of the HDMI standard, HDMI connections must be able to carry an audio signal in addition to video. So in effect, one of those is probably the videocard driver, the other is the audio driver. Rather than try to get the site to tell you what you need, just tell it to show you the latest drivers for your particular CPU/Graphics chip and download the video driver for your O/S. Chances are, even if it's newer than the driver I was using (which I only downloaded last week), that the fixes for SC4 are something that has been added to the codebase and should be supported in future.

Kudos to Intel, I never thought they'd care enough about backward compatibility to bother, but perhaps they are more serious about the integrated video than it first seemed. Or, maybe it's just a lucky random thing that was fixed when they took care of another problem, I mean, it's not like they would be targeting SC4 here.

[APSMS 1,892]

Well, given that Intel is touting their chipset as being a viable alternative to a dedicated low-end graphics card, it would make at least a modicum of sense for Intel to support more legacy situations than the OS and software makers, since having newer hardware that works with your old stuff is incentive to upgrade.

I doubt SC4 was the target, but perhaps it was part of a blanket effort to give DirectX 7 through 9 better support?

[matias93 7,535]

Or maybe someone in Intel just stumbled upon a good offer on GoG or Origin and saw the problem first hand.. 

[rsc204 21,808]

On 29/10/2016 at 1:00 PM, matias93 said:

Or maybe someone in Intel just stumbled upon a good offer on GoG or Origin and saw the problem first hand.. 

That'd be awesome, some Intel software engineer with a serious SC4 addiction. I like this idea a lot .

On 29/10/2016 at 7:18 AM, APSMS said:

Well, given that Intel is touting their chipset as being a viable alternative to a dedicated low-end graphics card

I'd agree, they are that good, low-mid end is what you get for free. There is a deep rooted distrust/hatred of integrated graphics, because until the last few years they were terrible for anything but the desktop, and sometimes terrible there too. But for the masses, the latest generations are more than they should need. It's not just legacy software, I only needed the NVidia card to play SC4 (driver problem and the reason I ponyed up another 170€). Then later I needed it to run Cities Skylines. I feel so done with the latter, I'm tempted now not to bother putting the NVidia card back, when I re-build my machine. Plenty of my less-intensive games played at 1080p just fine on the Intel card. Portal 2 for example with settings ramped up as far as they go was flawless. Not to mention, the lack of a dedicated unit I didn't need, means the computer runs cooler and quieter.

Not to mention, the Intel does something no NVidia or ATI card could, it supports 3 simultaneous 1080p displays.