You are not logged in.
Hello, i just install my Q4OS x64 Trinity for today. I tried everything and it's doesn't detect my Intel HD Graphic Card.
I check my mainboard . And it's it's had Intel HD Graphic 3000 . Why does it detect my iGPU instead?
Here is my mainboard information
Specification:
Model Name: H61-MX
Form Factor: Micro ATX; 21.5 cm x 17.0 cm
CPU:
- Intel LGA 1155 Socket
-Support Intel Core 2nd and 3rd Generation i7/i5/i3/Pentium/Celeron in 1155-pin CPU in 1155-pin
-Support Intel 22 nm CPU
-Support Intel Hyper-Threading Technology
-Support Intel Turbo Boost 2.0 Technology
-Support Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology (EIST)
Chipset: Intel H6 (B3 version)
Graphics: Integrated Intel Graphics 2000/3000
-Maximum 1759MB VGA share memory (UMA)
-Support DirectX 10.1
-Support Intel Quick Sync Video Technology
-Support dual VGA output
Memory:
- 2 x DIMM Slots, DDR3 1333/1066 MHz Non-ECC, Un-buffered Memory
- Maximum 16GB Memory Size
- Support Dual Channel Memory Architecture
PCI Express 2.0 x 16: 1
PCI Express 2.0 x 1: 1
Back I/O Ports:
- 1 x D-Sub (VGA)
- 1 x HDMI
- 1 x Gigabit LAN (Optional: 1 x 10/100Mbps LAN)
- 4 x USB 2.0
- 1 x COM Optional (Default W/O)
- 3 x Audio Jacks for 6 Channel High Definition Audio
- 1 x PS/2 Mouse
- 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
Onboard Connectors:
- 1 x Intel Front Panel Connector (2 x 5 pin)
- 1 x 4-pin Speaker Connector
- 1 x Front Panel Audio Connector (2 x 5 pin)
- 2 x USB 2.0 Connectors Support 4 x USB 2.0 Ports
- 4 x SATA 3Gb/s (SATAII) Ports
- 1 x 2-pin HDMI S/PDIF-Out Connector Optional (Default W/O)
- 1 x 4-pin CPU Fan Connector
- 1 x 4-pin Chassis Fan Connector
- 1 x 24-pin ATX Power Connector
- 1 x 4-pin ATX 12V Power Connector
- 1 x 3-pin WAKE_SW Header
- 1 x WAKE_SW Jumper
- 1 x IR Connector (2 x 3 pin) Optional (Default W/O)
- 1 x Buzzer Optional (Default W/O)
- 1 x 3-Pin Clear CMOS Header
- 1 x Clear CMOS Jumper (Red)
BIOS:
- 32 Mb EFI AMI BIOS
- PnP, DMI2.5, WfM2.0, ACPI V2.0, SM BIOS V2.6
Software: Microsoft Windows 7 (64-bit and 32-bit) Drivers Microsoft Windows XP (64-bit and 32-bit) Drivers
In the Box:
- Motherboard
- User Manual
- DIY Guide
- 1 x I/O Shield
- 2 x SATA Cables
- 1 x Support DVD
I need some help !
Offline
Don't worry about it.
Run
inxi -G
and post the output.
Offline
Don't worry about it.
Run
inxi -G
and post the output.
pftm@pftm-pc:~$ inxi -G
Graphics: Device-1: Intel 2nd Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics driver: i915 v: kernel
Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.4 driver: modesetting unloaded: fbdev,vesa resolution: 1600x900~60Hz
OpenGL: renderer: Mesa DRI Intel Sandybridge Desktop v: 3.3 Mesa 18.3.6
here is the output, somehow it's using mesa driver instead of Intel
Offline
bin wrote:Don't worry about it.
Run
inxi -G
and post the output.
pftm@pftm-pc:~$ inxi -G Graphics: Device-1: Intel 2nd Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics driver: i915 v: kernel Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.4 driver: modesetting unloaded: fbdev,vesa resolution: 1600x900~60Hz OpenGL: renderer: Mesa DRI Intel Sandybridge Desktop v: 3.3 Mesa 18.3.6
here is the output, somehow it's using mesa driver instead of Intel
From that output, I can see it is using intel's open source drivers, here Graphics driver: i915 and here OpenGL: renderer: Mesa DRI Intel Sandybridge also, your screenshot confirms that Q4OS does detect the card properly as well:
Did you install any other intel drivers? Linux uses open source drivers for most GPUs.
Offline
PFTM wrote:bin wrote:Don't worry about it.
Run
inxi -G
and post the output.
pftm@pftm-pc:~$ inxi -G Graphics: Device-1: Intel 2nd Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics driver: i915 v: kernel Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.4 driver: modesetting unloaded: fbdev,vesa resolution: 1600x900~60Hz OpenGL: renderer: Mesa DRI Intel Sandybridge Desktop v: 3.3 Mesa 18.3.6
here is the output, somehow it's using mesa driver instead of Intel
From that output, I can see it is using intel's open source drivers, here Graphics driver: i915 and here OpenGL: renderer: Mesa DRI Intel Sandybridge also, your screenshot confirms that Q4OS does detect the card properly as well:
Did you install any other intel drivers? Linux uses open source drivers for most GPUs.
No it's fresh install q4os, i switch to KDE and it's had the same result.
I don't get why only 1.8GB ram is used while i have 2 1GB ram card inserted
So why didn't it say Intel HD graphics like windows 7?
Offline
No it's fresh install q4os, i switch to KDE and it's had the same result.
I don't get why only 1.8GB ram is used while i have 2 1GB ram card inserted
It's an onboard graphics card, so the system takes some amount of the RAM to the GPU.
So why didn't it say Intel HD graphics like windows 7?
Because it is not Windows 7? And it does say it is using the intel's graphic card
pftm@pftm-pc:~$ inxi -G
Graphics: Device-1: Intel 2nd Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics driver: i915
it's just that things work different in Linux as it doesn't have the proprietary drivers but open source's which works just fine. Are you having any issues with your graphics? Does everything display correctly? Does the desktop work? I assume it does since you even took a screenshot and apart from the fact that you're expecting something that won't happen, everything seems to be in order. Read here for more info https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en … phics.html
Last edited by Tolkem (2021-04-04 00:49)
Offline
No it's fresh install q4os, i switch to KDE and it's had the same result.
I don't get why only 1.8GB ram is used while i have 2 1GB ram card insertedIt's an onboard graphics card, so the system takes some amount of the RAM to the GPU.
So why didn't it say Intel HD graphics like windows 7?
Because it is not Windows 7? And it does say it is using the intel's graphic card
pftm@pftm-pc:~$ inxi -G Graphics: Device-1: Intel 2nd Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics driver: i915
it's just that things work different in Linux as it doesn't have the proprietary drivers but open source's which works just fine. Are you having any issues with your graphics? Does everything display correctly? Does the desktop work? I assume it does since you even took a screenshot and apart from the fact that you're expecting something that won't happen, everything seems to be in order. Read here for more info intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005520/graphics.html
It's doesn't support wide screen resolution like windows 7. I look into display setting, only from 640x480 to 1600x900
There is no option for 1920x1080 or 1280x720. How do i fix that?
Offline
Tolkem wrote:No it's fresh install q4os, i switch to KDE and it's had the same result.
I don't get why only 1.8GB ram is used while i have 2 1GB ram card insertedIt's an onboard graphics card, so the system takes some amount of the RAM to the GPU.
So why didn't it say Intel HD graphics like windows 7?
Because it is not Windows 7? And it does say it is using the intel's graphic card
pftm@pftm-pc:~$ inxi -G Graphics: Device-1: Intel 2nd Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics driver: i915
it's just that things work different in Linux as it doesn't have the proprietary drivers but open source's which works just fine. Are you having any issues with your graphics? Does everything display correctly? Does the desktop work? I assume it does since you even took a screenshot and apart from the fact that you're expecting something that won't happen, everything seems to be in order. Read here for more info intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005520/graphics.htmlIt's doesn't support wide screen resolution like windows 7. I look into display setting, only from 640x480 to 1600x900
There is no option for 1920x1080 or 1280x720. How do i fix that?
Again, because it is not Windows 7. Do your monitor and graphics card support that resolution?
Offline
PFTM wrote:Tolkem wrote:It's an onboard graphics card, so the system takes some amount of the RAM to the GPU.
Because it is not Windows 7? And it does say it is using the intel's graphic card
pftm@pftm-pc:~$ inxi -G Graphics: Device-1: Intel 2nd Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics driver: i915
it's just that things work different in Linux as it doesn't have the proprietary drivers but open source's which works just fine. Are you having any issues with your graphics? Does everything display correctly? Does the desktop work? I assume it does since you even took a screenshot and apart from the fact that you're expecting something that won't happen, everything seems to be in order. Read here for more info intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005520/graphics.htmlIt's doesn't support wide screen resolution like windows 7. I look into display setting, only from 640x480 to 1600x900
There is no option for 1920x1080 or 1280x720. How do i fix that?Again, because it is not Windows 7. Do your monitor and graphics card support that resolution?
Yes. My monitor and graphic support all widescreen up to 1280x800
Offline
Yes. My monitor and graphic support all widescreen up to 1280x800
Well, you should see that option since 1600x900 is more than 1280x800. This is on KDE or TDE? You said you have both.
Offline
Yes. My monitor and graphic support all widescreen up to 1280x800
Well, you should see that option since 1600x900 is more than 1280x800. This is on KDE or TDE? You said you have both.
after 1280x1024 . The last option is 1600x900m, i checked it in both KDE and TDE, none of them have 1280x800
Offline
Tolkem wrote:Yes. My monitor and graphic support all widescreen up to 1280x800
Well, you should see that option since 1600x900 is more than 1280x800. This is on KDE or TDE? You said you have both.
after 1280x1024 . The last option is 1600x900m, i checked it in both KDE and TDE, none of them have 1280x800
https://i.imgur.com/F83KAfH.png
Ok, I see. FWIW, both resolutions' mode 1280x1024 and 1600x900 are far better than 1280x800 when it comes to image quality, so if you don't mind me asking, why do you want to use an inferior one? You might want to read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_ … %C3%97_800 and I quote
However, as of mid 2013, this standard is becoming increasingly rare, crowded out by the more standardised and thus more economical-to-produce 1366 × 768 panels, as its previously beneficial features become less important with improvements to hardware, gradual loss of general backwards software compatibility, and changes in interface layout. As of August 2013, the market availability of panels with 1280 × 800 native resolution had been generally relegated to data projectors or niche products such as convertible tablet PCs and LCD-based eBook readers.
And here too https://www.dell.com/en-in/work/shop/de … cs_section
In any case, open konsole and run this
xrandr
And post the output in your reply.
Offline
PFTM wrote:Tolkem wrote:Well, you should see that option since 1600x900 is more than 1280x800. This is on KDE or TDE? You said you have both.
after 1280x1024 . The last option is 1600x900m, i checked it in both KDE and TDE, none of them have 1280x800
Ok, I see. FWIW, both resolutions' mode 1280x1024 and 1600x900 are far better than 1280x800 when it comes to image quality, so if you don't mind me asking, why do you want to use an inferior one? You might want to read here
wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_display_resolution#1280_%C3%97_800
and I quote
However, as of mid 2013, this standard is becoming increasingly rare, crowded out by the more standardised and thus more economical-to-produce 1366 × 768 panels, as its previously beneficial features become less important with improvements to hardware, gradual loss of general backwards software compatibility, and changes in interface layout. As of August 2013, the market availability of panels with 1280 × 800 native resolution had been generally relegated to data projectors or niche products such as convertible tablet PCs and LCD-based eBook readers.
And here too
https://www.dell.com/en-in/work/shop/dell-20-monitor-e2016h/apd/210-amiu/monitors-monitor-accessories#techspecs_section
In any case, open konsole and run this
xrandr
And post the output in your reply.
pftm@pftm-pc:~$ xrandr
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1600 x 900, maximum 8192 x 8192
VGA-1 connected primary 1600x900+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 432mm x 236mm
1600x900 60.00*+
1280x1024 75.02 60.02
1152x864 75.00
1024x768 75.03 60.00
800x600 75.00 60.32
640x480 75.00 59.94
720x400 70.08
HDMI-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
DP-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
pftm@pftm-pc:~$
>why do you want to use an inferior one ? . A: Because the text on web broser are too small, my eye prefer the text size on 1280x800 resolution ! And video game with 720p window size are kinda small
Offline
>why do you want to use an inferior one ? . A: Because the text on web broser are too small, my eye prefer the text size on 1280x800 resolution ! And video game with 720p window size are kinda small
Well, xrandr says there's no 1280x800 nor 1920x1080 modes available for your graphics card, and according to dell's specifications for your monitor, max. resolution is 1600x900. Do you have a dual-boot setup? Do you have windows in this machine too? If you do, you can check whether it is a driver thing. I dual-boot and both windows and Linux report the same resolutions, though the GPU is AMD not Intel so ... You can change the font size in the browser.
Offline
>why do you want to use an inferior one ? . A: Because the text on web broser are too small, my eye prefer the text size on 1280x800 resolution ! And video game with 720p window size are kinda small
Well, xrandr says there's no 1280x800 nor 1920x1080 modes available for your graphics card, and according to dell's specifications for your monitor, max. resolution is 1600x900. Do you have a dual-boot setup? Do you have windows in this machine too? If you do, you can check whether it is a driver thing. I dual-boot and both windows and Linux report the same resolutions, though the GPU is AMD not Intel so ... You can change the font size in the browser.
Ah no i don't use dual boot. Seem like i had to stick with this resolutions a while. Thanks for help
Offline