Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel might be making gpus...disgusting

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 30, 2006 11:07:27 PM

Rumours have resurfaced about Intel's intentions to manufacturer a dedicated graphics processor....this is so dirty...their gpus suck...my neighbour's intel integrated 128mb processor cant even play fifa 2006...and he has 512mb of ddr2-533 ram and a socket 775 3.0ghz pentium 4...while i have a Geforce FX 5200 128mb on AGP:oops: , 512mb of DDR-400 ram and a socket 478 2.80ghz pentium 4...that sucks doesn't it...hopefully intel can get it right.

Intel might manufacture dedicated graphics cards
June 30, 2006 11:44:36 PM

Well, Intel makes graphic chips already. They're onboard crap chip, which they suck. I think it's pointless for them to do that.
June 30, 2006 11:53:33 PM

yeah they make integrated chips...which are quite frankly embarrassing to them in my opinion. Will anyone with knowledge of their gpu history trust them? I doubt. unless the benchmarks are good.
Related resources
July 1, 2006 12:01:35 AM

the scary thing is that ati will have the x700 integrated in their next gen mobos. Will this make low end videocards useless?
July 1, 2006 12:09:04 AM

I always look for the alterier motive....

I wonder if they are really trying to weak ATI, and NVIDIA because of the fact that they don't like them making motherboard chips? If they can get rid of them, then all intel cpu motherboards will run off of 915,965,975,etc chips....

Imagine where AMD would be left without ATI/NVIDIA/VIA making quality motherboard chips for them.... Actually they could make system on a chip - which would rule.... But I think that is probably the future anyway.... watch for AMD or Intel to try and buy NVIDIA - interesting idea huh!
July 1, 2006 1:22:45 AM

Where do you guys get your info? Intel IGP's are known to be the best performaning IGP's at the moment. And why get defensive? Hopefully they push the market with a good product, and stimulate for competition between these GFX companies. More competition = more engineers working on new GFX technology. So why complain? And if Intel puts out shit, then all the better for you AMD fanboys or Intel haters, because it would be a significant waste of resources and plunge their market share even further.

Intel's interest in the stand alone GFX industry, IMO, signifys that they've acknowledged the fact that they aren't nearly as strong as they used to be in the processor market, and Intel probably feels it has a better chance at being an all around company that can take on a market simply with it's big name. But, it also stands be just a plain old counter rumor to extinguish some of the fire that was built up over the ATI/AMD merger rumors.
July 1, 2006 1:48:31 AM

Quote:
Where do you guys get your info? Intel IGP's are known to be the best performaning IGP's at the moment. And why get defensive? Hopefully they push the market with a good product, and stimulate for competition between these GFX companies. More competition = more engineers working on new GFX technology. So why complain? And if Intel puts out ****, then all the better for you AMD fanboys or Intel haters, because it would be a significant waste of resources and plunge their market share even further.

Intel's interest in the stand alone GFX industry, IMO, signifys that they've acknowledged the fact that they aren't nearly as strong as they used to be in the processor market, and Intel probably feels it has a better chance at being an all around company that can take on a market simply with it's big name. But, it also stands be just a plain old counter rumor to extinguish some of the fire that was built up over the ATI/AMD merger rumors.


I agree with everthing you said.... Why I personally dont like it though is because I don't want them to pull a Microsoft, and push the other guys out of business.... The best product doesn't always win, so even if it pushes the other guys to improve their gfx, it might not matter if Intel starts giving away free gfx cards with purchase of an intel processor(or some other sceme)....

Look what intel tried to do with 64bit.... At first they released 64 bit chips that were not em64t/amd64 bit compatible.... They tried to start their proprietary 64 bit, and wanted Microsoft to only make Vista compatible with their 64bit chip - Forcing AMD out of business....

Wintel is evil....
July 1, 2006 1:52:23 AM

Not the best performing by a fair amount. The Nvidia 6100/6150 IGP earns that reward, with the ATI express 200 IGP in a close second. The GMA 900/950 trail a distant third, really only beating Intel's own previous graphics chips, the Extreme Graphics 2. The IGPs from Via and Sis are very old, with neither being able to outperform Intel's extreme graphics 2 chipset. So in all actuality, Intel's current IGP ranks third, mainly due to the fact that SIS and VIA have not even tried to produce a new IGP in the last 3 years.

Intel is the largest manufacturer of graphics chips though, vastly overshadowing Nvidia and ATI combined in total graphics sales.

ATI's new RS600 IGP will overshadow even Intel's soon-to-be-released x3000 IGP, which really should be no slouch itself as it should easily outperform today's current IGP champ, the Nvidia 6150.

I agree with the other poster, that these IGPs will probably make the low-end discrete graphics card obsolete. Hell, the Nvidia 6100/6150 already outperforms the 64 bit FX5200. :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
July 1, 2006 2:15:47 AM

One thing to keep in mind is that no one wants Intel to make competitive graphics chips. Their consumers are people that don't run games. These people don't want to pay more for a computer then they have to. ATI and Nvidia certainly don't want Intel making good graphics chips, because then no one would upgrade to their products.

Since intel is making motherboard chipsets anyway it makes a lot of sense for them to make IGPs as well. Anyway the only reason they are upgrading their IGPs is to be able to run Vista Aero without an addon card. This seems like a good idea to me. (Not for me personally, I like ATI cards)
July 1, 2006 2:32:07 AM

I feel the same way. Intel should stick to making entry level IGPs, as they do a good job at it. ATI and Nvidia are very strong in their market; I don't see much room for Intel in the discrete graphics market. This new IGP should enable Intel to corner the HTPC market though. I especially like Intel's add on cards for their IGPs that allow for tv output, among other things.
July 1, 2006 2:57:30 AM

Those are just rumors from an unknown site, dont take it too seriously. And about the onboard graphics chip, I think there're still many people benefit from it. If we have to pay lots of money for gaming, then yes, onboard graphics suck big time. But if you just need a computer to do office stuff and normal gaming, then onboard chips serve its purpose. And remember, we gamers dont make up more than 50% of the world computer owners population, so onboard chip is not such a bad idea.

These companies, Intel and AMD, they want to make money, not to show who is looking good. Like Toyota never gonna do crazy thing about speedy car like Ferrari or Porsch. That showing whos better is belonged to gaming system builder, because thats how they can make their computer more appealing to customers.
July 1, 2006 3:37:24 AM

I actualy wouldnt mind a 3Ghz graphics chip on 45nm... I dont think Intel will become a major player for at least a couple of generations anyway, so its not dirty of them people who buy video cards will buy what works best for the best price if its Intel then so ? if its ATI or Nvidia no one will care :) 
a b U Graphics card
July 1, 2006 3:40:35 AM

Quote:
I always look for the alterier motive....

I wonder if they are really trying to weak ATI, and NVIDIA because of the fact that they don't like them making motherboard chips? If they can get rid of them, then all intel cpu motherboards will run off of 915,965,975,etc chips....

Imagine where AMD would be left without ATI/NVIDIA/VIA making quality motherboard chips for them.... Actually they could make system on a chip - which would rule.... But I think that is probably the future anyway.... watch for AMD or Intel to try and buy NVIDIA - interesting idea huh!

Quote:
I agree with everthing you said.... Why I personally dont like it though is because I don't want them to pull a Microsoft, and push the other guys out of business.... The best product doesn't always win, so even if it pushes the other guys to improve their gfx, it might not matter if Intel starts giving away free gfx cards with purchase of an intel processor(or some other sceme)....

Look what intel tried to do with 64bit.... At first they released 64 bit chips that were not em64t/amd64 bit compatible.... They tried to start their proprietary 64 bit, and wanted Microsoft to only make Vista compatible with their 64bit chip - Forcing AMD out of business....

Wintel is evil....


WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR INFO?!?!

I'm not an Intel fanboy, nor an AMD fanboy. However, what you are saying is b$... if Intel put AMD out of business, then INTEL WOULD BE A MONOPOLY. which means bad news for everyone, which also means congress has to step in and break up the monopoly, intel would not risk losing alot of money by putting amd of of business. everything you have said is a lie. also, I doubt ANYONE would buy nvidia or be able to.

and also, it would suicide for intel to try to make a graphics card. Unless they could make a card that dominates the power of ATi and NVIDIA's cards. which would not happen, ati and nvidia have waaayyy too much experience in the graphics market.
July 1, 2006 4:29:42 AM

Quote:
I'm not an Intel fanboy, nor an AMD fanboy. However, what you are saying is b$... if Intel put AMD out of business, then INTEL WOULD BE A MONOPOLY.


Well, there'd still be Via and IBM :roll:

Heh, I can just imagine it. AMD files for bankruptcy, and overnight C7 sales triple.
July 1, 2006 4:38:45 AM

is there somethings wrong on there?


GMA X3000:Tipidpc.com


click the above to view more info about intel's latest onboard graphic accelerator
July 1, 2006 8:02:28 AM

Quote:
These companies, Intel and AMD, they want to make money, not to show who is looking good. Like Toyota never gonna do crazy thing about speedy car like Ferrari or Porsch.
Not to be a stickler, but does the name "Supra" ring any bells? :lol: 
July 1, 2006 12:04:39 PM

Yeah well Intel does sell the most chips but if they were to make dedicated video cards they would remain number one in selling if they sell them along with the cpu. But I doubt that they will do that. But there are rumours that ATI and AMD will merge together which in my opinion doesn't make sense given the fact that Intel signed a cross licensing contract with ATI and could be trying to stop Nvidia from running Quad SLI on their boards...
Intel isn't supporting quad sli
July 1, 2006 12:28:13 PM

Err... playing FIFA is not what a integrated graphics chip is supposed to do.
If Intel wants, they can actually create a discrete GPU that beats anything nVidia/ATi in like 3 or 4 years.
July 1, 2006 12:30:36 PM

Yes of cource an integrated solution is going to be slower then a dedicated gpu that costs 4x the ammount. What do you expect out of an integrated video card ?, its not going to be a graphical monster from any perspective.
July 1, 2006 12:56:00 PM

Quote:
Not to be a stickler, but does the name "Supra" ring any bells?


Not to be a stickler, but does the name "GT One" ring any bells?
Just kidding (ain't Gran Turismo great though)

On to my point:

Isn't Intel the number 1 graphics processor manufacturer in the whole world, way ahead of ATi and nVidia? (In case noone's mentioned it yet)
July 1, 2006 2:00:31 PM

We all should know that an integrated chipset can't match a dedicated processor. But it might be possible for Intel to defeat ATI and Nvidia at their own game.
July 1, 2006 2:12:28 PM

What type of boards does Intel make most of their integrated graphics for? Servers. Server's don't need that much graphics power anyway. In otherwords, Intel's focus on graphics is not for the gamer or for the video editor, just for making sure the system can output graphics if need be. I agree with what was mentioned earlier, the only reason they are upgrading is to make sure its compliant with Vista. Remember 70% or more of all motherboards Intel makes, end users (home users) never see; they are all in server machines.
July 1, 2006 2:39:06 PM

I'm not sure what's disgusting about it. Hell, let AMD get into it also.

Why? The more competition - Better technology! Better prices!

You buy what suites your needs.
July 1, 2006 3:00:12 PM

Intel also wants to make NAND, which is a smart business move because NAND hard drives are on their way. Samsung has made a ton of $$$ selling NAND to Apple for the iPod.
July 1, 2006 3:11:13 PM

Quote:
Isn't Intel the number 1 graphics processor manufacturer in the whole world, way ahead of ATi and nVidia? (In case noone's mentioned it yet)


Yes, they are. Their integrated graphics chips are in most cheap laptops and desktops.
July 1, 2006 3:13:55 PM

I don't know man, but it might be a good thing. Think about it Intel cpu, intel board and intel graphics cards. That would be a very stable gaming system and highly overclockable. I love Nvidia but I wanna see what Intel can offer with their plans of making gpus.
a c 355 U Graphics card
a c 111 å Intel
July 1, 2006 7:56:15 PM

Quote:
Rumours have resurfaced about Intel's intentions to manufacturer a dedicated graphics processor....this is so dirty...their gpus suck...my neighbour's intel integrated 128mb processor cant even play fifa 2006...and he has 512mb of ddr2-533 ram and a socket 775 3.0ghz pentium 4...while i have a Geforce FX 5200 128mb on AGP:oops: , 512mb of DDR-400 ram and a socket 478 2.80ghz pentium 4...that sucks doesn't it...hopefully intel can get it right.




Just about everyone knows that Intel's IGP is not for gaming. They exists mainly for the business clients who do not need to add in a discreet GPU just to do officework. Unless of course your "officework" is GPU intensive like game development, CAD, 3D rendering, etc.

Sure you can use them to play games, but 2D, not 3D games. Get with the program dude (and your neighbor too).
July 1, 2006 8:32:54 PM

At first they released 64-bit chips when AMD64 hadn't even been invented yet.

If Intel wants to make a GPU, it will be good, no doubt. I'd be glad to have another player come into this game. As far as GPU's are concerned, I'm completely impartial. I hate AMD, but if they made GPU's, I'd be all for it.
July 1, 2006 8:39:36 PM

Why wouldn't Intel do dedicated graphics, they've done it in the past with the i740 starfighter AGP which was at the time not a bad product let down by poor OpenGL drivers.

In developing the X3000 they have already had to design a DX9 SM3 card which would still be a worthwhile upgrade to the majority of people with current IGP products, why not offer it as a standalone card which will allow IGP people to run Vista Aero at a low cost? I can't see them going after the out and out performance crown, the money is to be made in the mass market anyway especially with Intels FABs meaning they have the ability to make these parts cheaper than ATI or Nvidia can having to rely on the likes of TMSC.
July 1, 2006 9:44:53 PM

how do bear with me not sure how these discustions go, sorry new to these. But not to computers..
Look at the big picture, in no way is intel trying to compete with nvidia or ati.......... its a mater of sheer size. If intel made a gpu and it worked and say in a year was as good or even better...........lets not forget if they wanted to make a gpu better than nvidia ect... they would but its not there core market. But if they make a gpu that worked really awsome with there chipsets and cpu's that could hurt AMD in the long run.
Reason AMD has hurt there core market............ Just a thought
July 2, 2006 12:19:10 PM

Quote:
Why wouldn't Intel do dedicated graphics, they've done it in the past with the i740 starfighter AGP which was at the time not a bad product let down by poor OpenGL drivers.


The i740 sucked ass until companies started shipping them with enough video memory that it didn't have to keep transferring data over the AGP bus all the time. As far as I can see Intel intended it as a means to push the AGP bus, not as a graphics card... and that showed.

Quote:
why not offer it as a standalone card which will allow IGP people to run Vista Aero at a low cost?


For the three people with integrated graphics who are going to upgrade to Vista, you mean?
July 2, 2006 12:57:56 PM

The point I was trying to make is that there is a market for upgraders
(and I suspect it will be more than 3 users!) who want a cheap add in card which will let them run Aero Glass and a selection of games, and that is the market Intel is most likely to go after. Glass itself demands a level of GPU sufficiently high that it would be an upgrade for quite a few people. If something is released with performance about on a par with say an x800 but at reduced cost I would think there would be a market for it.
July 2, 2006 1:45:54 PM

While I can agree with most of what you said here, Intel could do some serious damage if they move to their latest techonology & produce a chip/card better or even equivalent to ATI or Nvidia.
That combined with the promose of Conroe's performance could be a very good thing for intel & their gaming crowd in the very near future.

Sadly I dont see them catering for such a small market & I dont they can pull it off in time.... BUT!!!!! who really knows?
July 2, 2006 3:11:02 PM

Quote:

I'm not an Intel fanboy, nor an AMD fanboy. However, what you are saying is b$... if Intel put AMD out of business, then INTEL WOULD BE A MONOPOLY. which means bad news for everyone, which also means congress has to step in and break up the monopoly, intel would not risk losing alot of money by putting amd of of business. everything you have said is a lie.


If you think INTEL would not love AMD to go out of business, you are not thinking like a cut throat business man.... The govenrment never broke up Microsoft did they? I am sure INTEL would take the risk of being in Microsofts position and dealing with congress.... :D  Besides the IBM/sony/toshibs 'cell cpus' will be in the server/desktop/notebook market in the next 2 years.... So there will be competition....

Quote:
also, I doubt ANYONE would buy nvidia or be able to.


I can think of alot of senarious where the FTC would allow it, and alot where they might stop it....

When system on a chip ever becomes a reality makeing graphics cards obsolete(I don't know if that is 2 years or 20 years) maybe ATI will get absorbed in INTEL / and nvidia obsorbed in AMD or visa-versa....
July 2, 2006 3:29:20 PM

Quote:
Besides the IBM/sony/toshibs 'cell cpus' will be in the server/desktop/notebook market in the next 2 years.... So there will be competition....


So far Cell has only made it into home entertainment products.

I wouldn't open that can of worms though, there are die hard believers that it's going to come along and destroy AMD/Intel and there are sensible people who think that it's not going to do anything of note (other than PS3)
July 2, 2006 3:47:33 PM

Quote:
Besides the IBM/sony/toshibs 'cell cpus' will be in the server/desktop/notebook market in the next 2 years.... So there will be competition....


So far Cell has only made it into home entertainment products.

I wouldn't open that can of worms though, there are die hard believers that it's going to come along and destroy AMD/Intel and there are sensible people who think that it's not going to do anything of note (other than PS3)

I forgot IBM has already sold some high end 'cell cpu' server blades... So It is not just the PS3.... Will it hit the Desktop/notebook market with any force is the question?

I personally hope they do hit the desktop/notebook market, and are as fast as IBM/sony/toshiba claims.... I also hope that the die hards that think it will devistate INTEL/AMD are also wrong.... I would hope that INTEL/AMD have proceesors designed a few generations ahead that they could rush to the market.... I am sick of this slow doubling in speed every 18 months thing.... I want a phototronic PC!
July 2, 2006 4:16:51 PM

Quote:
I forgot IBM has already sold some high end 'cell cpu' server blades... So It is not just the PS3.... Will it hit the Desktop/notebook market with any force is the question?


It reeks of Itanium to me, but you could be right.
July 2, 2006 4:29:05 PM

Quote:
I forgot IBM has already sold some high end 'cell cpu' server blades... So It is not just the PS3.... Will it hit the Desktop/notebook market with any force is the question?


It reeks of Itanium to me, but you could be right.

The reason I think it could be different that Itanium, Is becasue of Linux/apache web servers.... If the 'cell cpu' comes with a straight linux operating system, then the guys running apache web servers could want them bad.... If IBM/sony/toshiba try to control the software it runs, and doesn't let it run open source linux, then it is done.... But ofcourse if the cell isn't as fast as claimed, then it is done....

I think people would buy a 'cell cpu' desktop/notebook if it satisfys all these IFS:
(1)If it as fast as they claim
(2)If it as cheap as they claim
(3)If it runs all open source linux software(for the office people)
(4)If it runs playstation3 games(for the gamers)

So it has to be fast,cheap, and have ALL the software....
July 2, 2006 5:06:55 PM

Quote:
We all should know that an integrated chipset can't match a dedicated processor. But it might be possible for Intel to defeat ATI and Nvidia at their own game.


I think there is alot more YOU should know before making these posts.
July 2, 2006 6:08:58 PM

Why does everyone care so much? If they suck (and maybe even if they don't) none of us will be buying one. If they're at least half way decent they might generate a bit of competition with ATI and Nvidia (probably in the entry level segment), helping drive prices down and sparking more development which is a GOOD THING.

-mcg
July 2, 2006 6:16:44 PM

Quote:
We all should know that an integrated chipset can't match a dedicated processor. But it might be possible for Intel to defeat ATI and Nvidia at their own game.


I think there is alot more YOU should know before making these posts.

yeah, the closer you get the graphics chips integrated to the CPU the faster it can be.... He has that backwards.... the intel915 IGPU isnt't slower becasue it is integrated, it is slow because it not a speedy design....
July 2, 2006 6:19:16 PM

Quote:
Why does everyone care so much? If they suck (and maybe even if they don't) none of us will be buying one. If they're at least half way decent they might generate a bit of competition with ATI and Nvidia (probably in the entry level segment), helping drive prices down and sparking more development which is a GOOD THING.

-mcg


we care, because we are computer poeple 8O
a b U Graphics card
July 2, 2006 9:26:04 PM

Simple facts to consider.

Intel is at the cutting edge of features alongside ATi and nV (everyone else either lags or drops out) so there's market to divide and conquer. Heck Intel's GMA965/3000 will be a unified design whereas nV's will not be.

So one has to think that they see an opportunity to exploit their ability to use their FAB capacity (be it ne 45nm or old 90nm).

Before the compeitition was strong, but now with essentially a duopoly they have the size to push in there and take some of the market, and likely a large chunk.

And what you guys seem to forget is that the most profitable segment of add-in is still the low end, and Intel could very easily dominate that market with their capable 2D/3D performance for that segment, and their much improved multi-media applications.

Also Intel may also wish to work in the VPU segment because of the rate of technology growth their, which may be more applicable to their server and mainstream CPU market.

From a business perspective this make alot of sens, it's actually more of a 'I'm surprised they haven't done it soone' thing. Seriously what other industry do you know of where the market leader doesn't have a hand involved in at least a single mid range product let alone high end?

I don't expect them to beat the R600/G80 cards, but I wouldn't be surprised if they plan on taking a big chunk of the X1300/GF7300 market and their replacement cards. Heck it would almost be necessary for the ViiV strategy IMO.

It's likely to hurt ATi an nV where they make the most profits, and unfortunately Intel isn't going to push the high end, so you may in turn see a slow down in development of top end cards if the margins and volumes of the most profitable segments are attacked.
July 2, 2006 9:57:36 PM

Intel would be a force to recon with in the budget/mainstream arena.
a b U Graphics card
July 2, 2006 10:14:41 PM

Quote:
Rumours have resurfaced about Intel's intentions to manufacturer a dedicated graphics processor....this is so dirty...their gpus suck...my neighbour's intel integrated 128mb processor cant even play fifa 2006...and he has 512mb of ddr2-533 ram and a socket 775 3.0ghz pentium 4...while i have a Geforce FX 5200 128mb on AGP:oops: , 512mb of DDR-400 ram and a socket 478 2.80ghz pentium 4...that sucks doesn't it...hopefully intel can get it right.

Intel might manufacture dedicated graphics cards


heh has everyone forgotten the Intel 740 agp video card - they came stock with like 8mb and were OK in its day.
July 2, 2006 10:39:05 PM

Yeah they used to make graphics card back in the day but Voodoo was the one dominanting it and then Nvidia pushed Voodoo out of the GPU market then ATI came and all other GPU manufacturers for industrial application. Now that only Nvidia and ATI are the main source for GPU's, I guess Intel want a cut of the market share as if they're not doing well in the CPU chip market. I don't know if they could pull out something new with there plan to compete against Nvidia and ATI but I sure wanna see it.

Like I said before it would nice to see an Intel chip, board and graphics card working together. :wink:
July 2, 2006 11:31:53 PM

I have intel graphics in my laptop, pretty crappy. The best game it can play is dawn of war but thats hardly the most intesive graphics. To be fair though it gets the job done and doesn't create that much heat.

Maybe nvidia and ati should start making processors :lol: .
July 3, 2006 4:02:50 AM

Quote:
heh has everyone forgotten the Intel 740 agp video card - they came stock with like 8mb and were OK in its day.
That was before Intel made integrated graphics. Ironically it became the basis for intel's first intgrated graphics chip, the GMCH 810/815 series featuring Intel's Extreme Graphics. These IGPs were close to stand-alone units, as they had up to 4 MB of memory (the DC100 models) built on the mobo (much like the ATI Rage turbo on my K6 system).

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/chipsets/display/intel...
July 3, 2006 7:06:13 AM

all of you guys who actualy believe this "rumor" are totally correct. I personally know that intel is planning on making a high end discrett graphics solution, because i know the manager of the low level driver suport group of the whole project.....did anyone wonder why intel purchased 3D labs?....didnt think of that did ya?...but yeah, they arent just planning on winning in the low end market, they are planning on taking the topspot....and with intels resources im almost positive that if they want to they will
!