Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel to produce GPUs!!!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 7, 2007 1:10:37 PM

What can I do; today is so crowded with funny news :D 
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37345

More about : intel produce gpus

February 7, 2007 1:20:59 PM

well... Its from the Inquirer!

From his very own article here:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37249

Quote:
INQ: Does Intel plan to make discrete graphic products?

Intel: We continue to work relentlessly with the platform ecosystem to define, develop and deliver platform and technology enhancements that delight our customers. We regularly update the community on advancements in these areas at Intel Developer Forums. Intel hasn’t announced any products in these areas at this time.
February 7, 2007 1:23:10 PM

Quote:
well... Its from the Inquirer!

Intel hasn’t announced any products in these areas at this time.


From his very own article
:lol:  :lol:  , I know, but this is the title of their article:
Quote:
Intel will produce graphics chips for graphics cards
:lol: 
Related resources
February 7, 2007 1:23:47 PM

well, it wouldn't surprise me. Figuring they pay AMD now for anything ATI they want to work with lol.
February 7, 2007 1:31:56 PM

If Intel offers energy efficient GPUs that don't require massive heatsinks and noisy fans then I'd be first in line to purchase them.
February 7, 2007 1:36:32 PM

Uhm, yeah they already kinda do, and they don't have noisy fans or massive heatsinks. They are the integrated graphics that come with some motherboards, so technically they already make "graphics chips" just not graphics cards.

I wish Intel would do something with Nvidia the same way AMD is collaborating with ATI/bought them out.
February 7, 2007 1:36:49 PM

Quote:
well... Its from the Inquirer!

Intel hasn’t announced any products in these areas at this time.


From his very own article
:lol:  :lol:  , I know, but this is the title of their article:
Quote:
Intel will produce graphics chips for graphics cards
:lol: 
Sigh, another example of sensationalist and irresponsible journalism.
February 7, 2007 1:49:57 PM

Yeah, they've been making GPUs for years, just not dedicated ones.
February 7, 2007 1:50:49 PM

Quote:
Yeah, they've been making GPUs for years, just not dedicated ones.


Kinda my thought on this. News that isn't news.
February 7, 2007 1:57:09 PM

Quote:
Uhm, yeah they already kinda do, and they don't have noisy fans or massive heatsinks. They are the integrated graphics that come with some motherboards, so technically they already make "graphics chips" just not graphics cards.

Well duh! I know that, but what I meant was something to compete against AMD/nVidia in the discrete graphics segment. Right now Intel can't offer SLI or Crossfire on their Bensley 2S workstation platform (although SLI will work with a patched driver).
February 7, 2007 2:27:22 PM

Quote:
Yeah, they've been making GPUs for years, just not dedicated ones.

Right, and just in counter-tendency with old rumors about nvidia acquisition; they're 'adding' another builder, not removing another.
February 7, 2007 4:11:58 PM

Quote:
well... Its from the Inquirer!

Intel hasn’t announced any products in these areas at this time.


From his very own article
:lol:  :lol:  , I know, but this is the title of their article:
Quote:
Intel will produce graphics chips for graphics cards
:lol: 
Sigh, another example of sensationalist and irresponsible journalism.

Hey, wash your mouth out with soap. We're talking about the august and prize-winning journal The Inq! Not CBS News that can't tell whether a letter was typed on a Selectric or printed from MS Word! :lol: 
February 7, 2007 4:47:47 PM

Hmmm. You are full of, well, something unpleasant.

Why would the Inq reporting Intel wanting to bust into the high end graphics market rank as "funny"? Seeing as THEY ALREADY MAKE MORE GPUS THAN ATI AND NVIDIA COMBINED.

Intel has, for many years, retained by far the largest GPU market share, but only in the IGP space. The fact they now wish to toss their hat into the ring with advanced GPUs is, I would say, predictable and good for the consumer. I detest duopolies, which is what ATI and nVidia have become.

I welcome Intel to the top end market. Let's see a big fight, and thetop end cards come down to $300 where they should be.
February 7, 2007 4:52:31 PM

Amen to that.
February 7, 2007 7:21:03 PM

Quote:
Hmmm. You are full of, well, something unpleasant.
Why would the Inq reporting Intel wanting to bust into the high end graphics market rank as "funny"?

like :?: :!:
February 7, 2007 7:27:47 PM

Intel has already made graphics cards, but not fot some time.

Anyone remenber the Intel i740 cards?

If not have a google at it.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 7, 2007 7:31:24 PM

Adding some credibility

Funny thing is that they say it will include as much as 16 cores and then they talk about 16X the performance. GPU being massively parrallel, it would mean that in 2 years, Intel would have a core similar in performance to the G80, but with they're manufacturing advantage they could slap 16 of them in one die...

So it would actually be the BitchinFastVideoCard =Þ
February 7, 2007 7:33:55 PM

Quote:
Adding some credibility

Funny thing is that they say it will include as much as 16 cores and then they talk about 16X the performance. GPU being massively parrallel, it would mean that in 2 years, Intel would have a core similar in performance to the G80, but with they're manufacturing advantage they could slap 16 of them in one die...

So it would actually be the BitchinFastVideoCard =Þ

By that time ATI/AMD and NVIDIA will have released r700 and g90, etc. which have multiple smaller-gpus one one die. Well that's a simple way of putting it. They aren't like quad core video cards. They're going to be monsters.
February 7, 2007 7:51:53 PM

Sorry guys, it's been a long day and I just don't have it in me. So please take the liberty to imagine the some random insult about the Inquirer occupied the space next to my name. Thanks.
February 7, 2007 10:14:33 PM

intel wil buy nvidia in a hostile take over!
February 7, 2007 10:39:43 PM

Quote:
If Intel offers energy efficient GPUs that don't require massive heatsinks and noisy fans then I'd be first in line to purchase them.

GMA 950???

TBH ive only heard abt the Inq earlier last year, and it seems its mostly BS. But it would be good if Intel decided to go head to head with NV and ATI. Given that NV and ATI are pushing ahead quite well atm, and market situation along with Intel's current position they would be silly 2 enter.

2c
February 7, 2007 10:45:39 PM

god i was superexcited when i read the title to this article, thats so lame.
February 7, 2007 10:57:09 PM

Quote:
What can I do; today is so crowded with funny news :D 
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37345



Well, even though its through the Inq :roll: , it makes sence, figuring a mid rage vid card costs almost as much if not more (in some cases) than a mid rage CPU. And with the Intel/AMD price war going on, CPU prices very well may keep sliding
February 7, 2007 11:20:44 PM

Quote:
Adding some credibility

Funny thing is that they say it will include as much as 16 cores and then they talk about 16X the performance. GPU being massively parrallel, it would mean that in 2 years, Intel would have a core similar in performance to the G80, but with they're manufacturing advantage they could slap 16 of them in one die...


Credibility? I'm rather suspecting that the entire second paragraph of that article is complete BS, and they didn't provide any reference as to where, when, or who might have made such an announcement...

I wouldn't assume that intel plans on making GPUs on 32nm right as they are first trying to get their CPUs to run on it as well. I would assume they would use a process a generation or two old as ll their new process fabs will be ramping up with their flagship products (CPUs). Intel is hardly in a situation where they would need to gamble their CPU market share to try and gain a stake in a market they already abandoned once before. 32nm isn't even scheduled to begin production of the Nehalem-C until 2008 durring which time 45nm Penrynn's are supposed to still be in production. If you were to make a really optomistic guess that Intel might use one of their more advanced processes for their GPU to be realeased in 2008/2009 it would be ramping up on 45nm as Penrynn ramps down. But really, it would probably be a completely seperate fab and process.

I also have never heard of "DX11". In fact, if you go to microsoft.com and search for "DX11" the only result is a value for a function call to an OpenGL ICD that appears to have a possible value of DX11. I mean, I might just be out of it, but the only other mentionings I see of "DX11" are from random posters that assume that MS's replacement for DX10 will be called DX11 and that it will come out sometime in the future... Even if you were to project things out into the future using meaningless arbitrary names consider that the first DX9 card was the r9700 pro released in 2002, the first DX10 card was released at the very end of 2006 in a rush to hit the christmas season. That's +4years and there weren't any additional OS or hardware requirement hurdles other than the cards and software themselves (this time around you need a new OS and to double your ram, so adoption will likely be slower). So late 2008/2009 is not "DX11 era" by any wild guesses. Even if MS was already working on a successor to DX10, which they damn well better not be until the make sure DX10 is working properly and can be ported to other OSes, I can garantee you that the project is NOT called DX11 as that would be a marketing name, not a project code name, so I'm pretty sure that DX11 simply doesn't exist in any way, shape, or form and anyone making speculation about what it might be and when it might come out is BSing.

"ooo, but in the future someone will release something with a bigger number on it. Bigger numbers means it's faster and better OMG WTF LOL!" That's what I think of people who are serious when they make up product names for future products by making the numbers bigger...

This isn't exactly my area of expertise, but from what I do know it really sounds like this guy "Visionary" is making stuff up without even understanding what he's talking about and doesn't cite any sources. How do we know his "source" isn't The INQ? Correct me if I'm wrong...

oh, and the "L'INQ" doesn't link to anything having to do with intel gpu speculation. And the John Peddie Reseach place appears to be a one-man organization and of one of their products they say "we offer our clients a bi-weekly report, Jon Peddie’s Tech Watch. We provide up-to-the-minute information..." Some kind of time travel is involved here I think, would justify the $7000/year for a bi-weekly e-publication... And despite the questionable credentials of JPR he's only quoted as saying "I think they will have to" and not "I have information showing that intel is actively pursuing" and quite frankly I can't find the article where he said even that. Maybe it was in the bi-weekly report he sent out...

I think I just spent more time doing real journalistic research than the INQ does in a month. I should start my own website xD

Speculation is great and all, but only if you first identify it as speculation and then try to do it intelligently and back it up with refernces.
February 7, 2007 11:47:03 PM

Quote:
Sorry guys, it's been a long day and I just don't have it in me. So please take the liberty to imagine the some random insult about the Inquirer occupied the space next to my name. Thanks.


Second that.
February 8, 2007 6:13:26 AM

Quote:
god i was superexcited when i read the title to this article, thats so lame.


god i was superexcited when Jessica Alba broke into my bedroom last night and stripped, thats so lame.

:twisted:
a b à CPUs
February 8, 2007 7:04:40 AM

Intel already made graphics chips, they sold a lot of them in the late 1990's.
February 8, 2007 7:52:09 AM

why don't they just buy Nvidia and get it over with.

Next thing you know, AMD will purchase western digital, and Intel - Seagate Respectively, then Kingston and Corsair.
February 8, 2007 9:24:21 AM

Quote:
why don't they just buy Nvidia and get it over with.

Next thing you know, AMD will purchase western digital, and Intel - Seagate Respectively, then Kingston and Corsair.


Dude, AMD doesn't have enough money just to buy the lottery tickets it would take! :lol: 
February 8, 2007 9:31:49 AM

well maybe vice versa?

WD buying AMD who bought ATI, the final result being: Western Advanced Array Inc. :p 
February 8, 2007 10:13:10 AM

Quote:
well maybe vice versa?

WD buying AMD who bought ATI, the final result being: Western Advanced Array Inc. :p 


Wow, this is more fun than hanging around a U. of Arkansas football game trying to decipher how everyone in the stadium has a family tree that doesn't fork. :D 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 8, 2007 3:04:54 PM

While I agree with you ont he process, I would see Intel using one generation old process for their vid card, they do have a manufacturing advantage over the Fabless compagnies and I coul see them leveraging that to step back into the discrete GPU market.

Also i think the DX10.1/11 reference was just to show that it is not for tomorrow and that the 16X performance claim doesn't mean all that much.

Bottom line is VR_Zone is a much more credible source then the INQ.
February 8, 2007 4:36:19 PM

Dude, you really need to do some spell checking and stuff on your site. Sure makes me wonder how well I would do selling my Boutique Systems. Get your site cleaned up, looking a little more flashy and get some advertising out there man!! YOU CAN DO IT!!!!!!
February 8, 2007 5:15:52 PM

Quote:
Hmmm. You are full of, well, something unpleasant.

Why would the Inq reporting Intel wanting to bust into the high end graphics market rank as "funny"? Seeing as THEY ALREADY MAKE MORE GPUS THAN ATI AND NVIDIA COMBINED.

Intel has, for many years, retained by far the largest GPU market share, but only in the IGP space. The fact they now wish to toss their hat into the ring with advanced GPUs is, I would say, predictable and good for the consumer. I detest duopolies, which is what ATI and nVidia have become.

I welcome Intel to the top end market. Let's see a big fight, and thetop end cards come down to $300 where they should be.


largest != fastest/best
February 8, 2007 6:13:11 PM

Quote:
well maybe vice versa?

WD buying AMD who bought ATI, the final result being: Western Advanced Array Inc. :p 


O Rly??

No WAAI! :D 
February 8, 2007 6:21:27 PM

Quote:
What can I do; today is so crowded with funny news :D 
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37345



That's nto the only place saying that. Intel is quoted as saying that their GPU will be 16x faster than G80.



Linkage!

WTF? 8O , but in 2 years time!

yeah so I guess they're going to sabotage AMD and nVidia's Fabs so they won't release anything new.

I mean realistically ATi/nVidia increase 2x EVERY year, so 2 years from now G80 will be a dinosaur. ATi is also looking at modular GPUs for R700, and for Fusion.

I'll believe Intel can overtake them with their first GPU when I see it.

i960 was supposed to be this incredible thing too. We all know how that came out.
February 8, 2007 6:52:46 PM

Quote:
What can I do; today is so crowded with funny news :D 
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37345



That's nto the only place saying that. Intel is quoted as saying that their GPU will be 16x faster than G80.



Linkage!

WTF? 8O , but in 2 years time!

yeah so I guess they're going to sabotage AMD and nVidia's Fabs so they won't release anything new.

I mean realistically ATi/nVidia increase 2x EVERY year, so 2 years from now G80 will be a dinosaur. ATi is also looking at modular GPUs for R700, and for Fusion.

I'll believe Intel can overtake them with their first GPU when I see it.

i960 was supposed to be this incredible thing too. We all know how that came out.

well as they are already providing IGP, so I think that if they want to provide a discrete graphics solution, they can! they can surely join in the competition and then take it from there. It will be interesting !
February 8, 2007 7:34:05 PM

R700 and G90, expect to see them out just a few weeks shy of a year less than when their previous generation was launched. It has happened very recently where the next-gen card were released within a year of the others (just look at wikipedia on ati and nvidias previous gen releases.). So we will be seeing atleast r800 and G100(?) by the time INTEL gets their gpu out the door. Shoot me if I'm wrong.
February 9, 2007 12:48:53 AM

Quote:
What can I do; today is so crowded with funny news :D 
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37345



That's nto the only place saying that. Intel is quoted as saying that their GPU will be 16x faster than G80.



Linkage!

That's already been linked in this thread, and the quote doesn't say that. It doesn't cite any sources either. I already wrote a huge response to that uninformative BSing article ...no one listens to me :( 
!