Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel admits to graphics problems

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 16, 2008 11:56:38 AM

Yes, several sites including AnandTech are reporting that an Intel engr has admitted that G45(X4500) leaves a lot to be desired. It requires users(OEMs) to know how to set up the BIOS properly or they will not get HD-playable quality. He admits that several features are still broken and fortunately Intel has fast chips to cver up the failings. The last Intel sponsored test used a 3GHz chip, while it seems as though most people are still around 2.5GHz with non-Penryn chips.

This means that most users will see CPU usage much higher than the 20-30% reported. I realize this is a sore subject around here but there was a huge argument here about this a few days ago. Here's the Anandtech link.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12677
a c 117 à CPUs
August 16, 2008 12:40:43 PM

With all the delays on G45 I would not call this a surprise - more like a confirmation.

I actually appreciate direct comments on issues instead of marketing dept FUD and overt Fanboism, though Brezenski starts to come off as a whiner at the end of the article. It seems to me that Intel may want to include Arcsoft Total Media Player with the G45s to address the playback issues (though that may not help the low HD HQV test scores and surround sound problems).


And I think you are being a little overly sensitive Grimmy. This ain't crap ....

though the G45 is at this point (sorry - couldn't resist :p  )
August 16, 2008 1:16:33 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Yes, several sites including AnandTech are reporting that an Intel engr has admitted that G45(X4500) leaves a lot to be desired. It requires users(OEMs) to know how to set up the BIOS properly or they will not get HD-playable quality. He admits that several features are still broken and fortunately Intel has fast chips to cver up the failings. The last Intel sponsored test used a 3GHz chip, while it seems as though most people are still around 2.5GHz with non-Penryn chips.

This means that most users will see CPU usage much higher than the 20-30% reported. I realize this is a sore subject around here but there was a huge argument here about this a few days ago. Here's the Anandtech link.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12677


1st step in recovery is admittance.

Word, Playa.
Related resources
August 16, 2008 2:31:58 PM

Quote:
I'm just sick of the flame threads, when I already know BM hate Intel, and just labels it for the CPU part of the forum.

I mean, why not just post positive things about AMD, or real concerns?

But NOOOOOoo.. it needs to be something to make what you hate look bad to make you feel better, and in the process, to piss other people off.

Even if this thread was more innocent, it's meaning would soon be lost to people who simply just hate what the OP talks about, and wants the center of attention.




I don't hate Intel - really I just don't like the horror stories I've heard over the years about their "behavior." I think my post was pretty clear. I didn't ask for the thing to have SW and HW problems. I didn't ask for it to need a Penryn level chip at 3GHz. It's a widespread story. I'd probably post that AMD was late or something also if it was news. I even posted a story about Tim Sweeney liking Larrabee.

I really hate though that this basically means the low end will still be left out. The funny thing is that 780G could be theirs, but then I guess that would kill their dominance in IGP. If AMD is successful in their latest Tour, the graphics issue may actually get them to 30% - it's already stated (Digitimes) that they have increased graphics share by 10%! Now with R700 available for Spider and the ability to refresh Puma with 790GX, it's reasonable.

I guess I do like the fact that little David seems to be still alive and so is competition. That's the important thing.
August 16, 2008 3:25:16 PM

Just read the article. First thing that comes to mind is, Intel is fairly guilty of getting things done their way. Quote "Brezenski says that this is not a problem with Intel's hardware; rather the problem is that standard COPP protocols used in current software players do not support the use of repeaters. He goes on to say that, software players available don't take advantage of OPM, which does support repeaters.

Brezenski writes in his blog post, "I don't know what we can do at Intel to implore our partners in the software player companies to get this done (implement OPM), but we need them to implement a fix for this issue ASAP. I know we must be engaged with them on this, I just don't see why it's not implemented yet. It's been at least three months, and it's making us, not them, look bad in the marketplace" This sounds too familiar. Its not that Intel maybe doesnt have these abilities, but theyve done them THEIR way, so now its the SW vendors fault. Why cant Intel just get on board like everyone else? Do what they do? Include the HW that makes everyone elses to work? This cant be that hard for the best HW company in the world to do? Thing is, it wouldnt kill Intel to do this. If AMD, nVidia and everyone else makes compliant HW, then its either the influence of Intel isnt what its said to be, or Intel is doin the pooch. All Im asking is, Intel, will you get it right?
August 16, 2008 3:31:06 PM

Damn Grimmy let it go. BM is ok, he has been good for the most part. Don't go bitching about him when many others who are on the forum simply to spread FUD and are posting as we speak. Damn some people are overly sensitive. I'll be the first to say thanks BM for the link.

It would seem that the only real option now for an HTPC is to use a real GPU and a real sound card. This is not a real bad thing, but it does hike the price up a bit. This could be AMD's time to shine, for once, with the power of the R700s and the decent quadcore Phenoms that are out, they could easily make one hell of an answer to the G45.
August 16, 2008 3:58:20 PM

I deleted my post then.

I'm sorry if you guys feel as though I over reacted.

:p 
August 16, 2008 4:04:34 PM

Naw, its all good. Maybe you prevented something from starting. Ive been somewhat vocal about these things concerning Intel lately, but I think its well deserved. Intel needs a working chipset, and bad. In that, I mean one that does 7.1 audio playback, one that does bluray playback. The ATOM is just sitting here and waiting for it. The HTPC market wont be expanded as well without it. Everybody wins when Intel gets it right here. Their name will carry sales. If they have roached products, this will only harm it. Im hoping they get it right
a c 117 à CPUs
August 16, 2008 5:41:28 PM

Grimmy said:
I deleted my post then.

I'm sorry if you guys feel as though I over reacted.

:p 


NP

It's not like any of the rest of us never get a little torqued or engage our fingers while slipping the clutch on our brains ... :whistle: 


If I were AMD I'd get to work on refreshing and improving the 780g because Chipzilla has the resources to get GMA45 and/or a future iteration right in short time. It's a narrow window for AMD to make substantial gains on the business desktop, establish a strong base in the HTPC world, etc. ....
August 16, 2008 6:08:15 PM

Wisecracker said:
NP

It's not like any of the rest of us never get a little torqued or engage our fingers while slipping the clutch on our brains ... :whistle: 


If I were AMD I'd get to work on refreshing and improving the 780g because Chipzilla has the resources to get GMA45 and/or a future iteration right in short time. It's a narrow window for AMD to make substantial gains on the business desktop, establish a strong base in the HTPC world, etc. ....


I dont think its a matter of AMD establishing themselves in HTPC. I think its a matter of HTPC establishing itself. While the enthusiast crowd may be 'all over' HTPC, we all know what a tiny fragment of the electronics consumer base the enthusiasts are. I doubt the majority of the bissfully ignorant general electronics consumer base is going to rush out to buy another PC just to play music or video when they can get TIVO. Even the cable companies are now proving TIVO like features in their services. IMO, in that respect it was unwise of AMD to drop the consumer electronic video products. I would guess 'TIVO' will continue to slowly evolve into something with HTPC like capabilities, except in a 'plug and play' package that requires minimum user knowledge and effort.....making it attractive to the majority of consumers who have no clue what HTPC is. ATIs consumer electronic video products would (or would have) played right into that market, where Intel has nothing that I know of to compete. On the processor side, I doubt we'd wind up seeing anything like a ground up 'purpose' built product, but just further tweaks of all ready existing designs.

On the good side, there are still rumblings about ATIs CEV products, and diamond is/has/will/may release a new ATI based AIW card which would seem to indicate that ATI is not abandoning CEV altogether. So hard to tell whats going on these days.

http://www.diamondmm.com/AIWHD3650.php
August 16, 2008 7:03:40 PM

Thats why its be good for Intel to do good here, for if Intel goes into it, people will buy it, leading to expansion into a new field, which helps AMD as well
August 16, 2008 7:51:36 PM

The article makes a good point, if they cannot get this right then this could reduce confidence in getting their future Discrete graphics to work correctly.
August 16, 2008 9:40:42 PM

speedbird said:
The article makes a good point, if they cannot get this right then this could reduce confidence in getting their future Discrete graphics to work correctly.




That was one of the reasons I posted it. How can we believe that Intel will have industry standard HW if they can't even get IGPs right? They always want to have the standard and don't accept standards from anyone else. nVidia IS GPUs, but Intel says no, "we'll use our power to force SW devs our way too for graphics, just like SSE on the CPU." Except that by the time Larrabee makes an appearance nVidia and ATi will have GPUs that will do close to 3TFLOPS. Wait R700 is already at 2.4TFLOPS so we can assume that R800 or perhaps R900 will be ready which has the potential to up that to 4-5TFLOPS.

I mean hell just TSMC going to 40nm will allow probably 1200SPs in the same size package, and 32nm will allow probably an extra 50% again. And since I thought that GPUs may end up smaller than CPUs , it's not too far-fetched. Now when I say I don't think they play well with others we can look at this article where Intel expects people to adopt their standards. I think that's why MS uses so much AMD. They're a lot easier to deal with.
August 16, 2008 9:55:17 PM

In the end , Im hoping Rob Enderle is wrong, but it doesnt appear so. Intel just doesnt get it. Yes, M$ works with AMD cause Intels out there doing their own thing, and yes, the OEMs want AMD around for certainty and options, but Im wondering if after seeing what happened to nVidia lately, with its mindset regarding ATI, and now seeing things like this, that Intel is as they used to say too big for its breeches, that Intel is taking an cavalier attitude towards its competition, and that will hurt Intel in the end, just like it did with nVidia. Enderle has it right so far, and if Intel doesnt change, itll remain that way.
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2008 4:08:19 AM

BaronMatrix said:
That was one of the reasons I posted it. How can we believe that Intel will have industry standard HW if they can't even get IGPs right? They always want to have the standard and don't accept standards from anyone else. nVidia IS GPUs, but Intel says no, "we'll use our power to force SW devs our way too for graphics, just like SSE on the CPU." Except that by the time Larrabee makes an appearance nVidia and ATi will have GPUs that will do close to 3TFLOPS. Wait R700 is already at 2.4TFLOPS so we can assume that R800 or perhaps R900 will be ready which has the potential to up that to 4-5TFLOPS.

I mean hell just TSMC going to 40nm will allow probably 1200SPs in the same size package, and 32nm will allow probably an extra 50% again. And since I thought that GPUs may end up smaller than CPUs , it's not too far-fetched. Now when I say I don't think they play well with others we can look at this article where Intel expects people to adopt their standards. I think that's why MS uses so much AMD. They're a lot easier to deal with.

Well, R700 isn't anywhere close to 2Tflops double precision though, and all of Intel's numbers are double precision. That doesn't mean Larrabee will be amazing, but it might not suck either. Nobody can really tell yet. I'd say it's best to reserve judgment until closer to the release time.
!