Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel & nVidia at it again

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 25, 2008 3:57:02 AM

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20081223PD216.html
This is so sad. People that wanted sli on Intel, now people actually wanting gfx in netbooks, but NOOOOOOOOO, we cant get along. Its time both nVidia and Intel quit acting like each other and start making some money, and giving us what we want

More about : intel nvidia

December 25, 2008 4:07:30 AM

Intel wont do it because it would basically be an admitance that they know nobody wants their intergrated video in their laptops. Which is infact true, Intel can throw as many X's, H's and D's they want on their intergrated video "chips", you still cant do **** with it.
December 25, 2008 4:15:56 AM

^ What he said.

Intel was/is very much wanting to get into the graphics market. Nvidia and to an extent ATI are busy laughing their proverbial asses off, and essentially intel is getting butt hurt. Its like high school, but in a multi-billion dollar market.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 25, 2008 11:43:11 AM

Your missing the point - Intel sell tons of their crappy integrated graphics as part of the whole chipset, gpu. and cpu platform package.

Most customers just want a lappy that runs apps ...

They don't care about quality speedy graphics ... they don't play games on work machines.

From memory don't Intel sell more gu's than either NV or ATI ??

December 25, 2008 1:58:41 PM

I keep hearing more, what Id like to know is dollar figures. When you sell crap, it has to be lowly priced, vs discrete. So, if you sell 2x as many at 10$ a flop, who cares? Crap is still crap
December 25, 2008 2:23:23 PM

Reynod said:
Your missing the point - Intel sell tons of their crappy integrated graphics as part of the whole chipset, gpu. and cpu platform package.


Actually, I think what Intel are most scared of is companies packaging the Atom CPU with a decent chipset, and thereby cutting into Intel's higher-end CPU market. By crippling Atom with a lousy chipset, they ensure that anyone who wants better system performance has to buy a more expensive CPU.
December 25, 2008 2:49:49 PM

Thats so.....80s heheh, or Ford or Chevy. Intel doesnt get it here. Someone will do it. And then what? I understand their mindset, but then again, arent they really hurting themselves as well? The margins on their other chips are much higher, and yes theyd lose profit/%'s. But someones going to do this. John Peddie said Intel doesnt get it, and this is 1 example. If they raised their prices on Atom, it maybe not be so attractive, as competitors come in. You may see AMD and other ARM chips as well doing this, and Intel will be left out.

The point is , is this. Raising the costs of Atom would then somewhat justify for allowing a shared platform, as profit/% would go up. The problem is, Intel sees this as a funtional for business be it personal or professional. Those picings usually have to be kept low, as this market somewhat demands it. Whereas as "fun" platform, they can get away with charging more for it, as its features will be increased, and since Intel really doesnt offer a complete platform, and wont even with LRB at this level, theyve stiffed this entire segment/market.

Again, as Ive said, if they upped their costs, and allowed for a shared system/platform, itd work, but then this is where competition comes in, and frankly, I think Intel just wants to manage it at this level/market, while others will and should step in and have some "fun"

By not sharing in a complete platform, Intel is shooting itself in the foot. They never have done gfx, and LRB will be too much for this, and its to Intels shame, after all these years of dumping their crap IGPs on us, meanwhile, its time for others to step up, and take this market, as Intel wants to just manage it
December 25, 2008 4:16:37 PM

Nobody is missing the point reynod except Intel.

Nobody wants to pay for garbage, in this case intel GMA equiped laptops. A laptop is a one time purchase, an expensive purchase, a big purchase. Its not like a desktop where you can just decide at a later date if you get an inch for games to throw a video card in there. Hell you cant even watch HD movies on the Intel GMA even with their little MHD4000 like they say you can without a 2.4ghz+ proc, trust me ive personally seen it in action.

They cant be making alot off these GMA chips, I mean the laptops that have them are basically bare minimum price-wise. And you can get a decent laptop with a 9600M GT in it for under $1000.
a b à CPUs
a c 171 Î Nvidia
December 25, 2008 4:49:45 PM

@jaydeejohn, What is the AMD equivalent of the atom called?

And this is not a loaded or flamewar\fight inducing question (hopefully), I've been up to my eyeballs in work for the last several months (woot!) and I cannot be bothered to go looking for what AMD may or may not have been up to in the desktop CPU arena, let alone the laptop playground.
December 25, 2008 4:53:05 PM

They dont really have one mouse. I guess you could say the AMD Geode, but its old...old....old. I think it tops out at 600mhz
a b à CPUs
a c 171 Î Nvidia
December 25, 2008 5:02:34 PM

Hmm, that may not bode well for those little netbook things which, let's face it, are not a bad starter for ten if you are ten, and also quite useful if your vehicle has a limited carrying capacity.
a c 127 à CPUs
December 25, 2008 5:16:57 PM

spathotan said:
Intel wont do it because it would basically be an admitance that they know nobody wants their intergrated video in their laptops. Which is infact true, Intel can throw as many X's, H's and D's they want on their intergrated video "chips", you still cant do **** with it.


Well considering the fact that Intel does sell more of their IGPs to businesses and that we gamers and enthusiasts are a very small portion of the market you never know. Intel does out sell NV and ATI by a lot because most people just want a PC to do what they need and thats surf the web and watch some movies. We gamers don't normally worry about this because, well a PC gamer who uses a IGP is not really that much of a gamer.

Its like those Youtube videos that AMD has that show their IGP vs Intels IGP for gaming. We all know it can play older games and thats just fine but most PC gamers will do what we always do and get a discrete and 100%+ better GPU.

Mousemonkey said:
@jaydeejohn, What is the AMD equivalent of the atom called?

And this is not a loaded or flamewar\fight inducing question (hopefully), I've been up to my eyeballs in work for the last several months (woot!) and I cannot be bothered to go looking for what AMD may or may not have been up to in the desktop CPU arena, let alone the laptop playground.


AMD has yet to make one.

Atom is good for its market too. And the applications that it has once they can find a way to put the chipset on the CPU will be quite nice.
December 25, 2008 5:25:00 PM

Mousemonkey said:
@jaydeejohn, What is the AMD equivalent of the atom called?


I wish AMD did have an Atom equivalent to provide enough competition to stop Intel playing silly games with their customers: if I could buy a cut-down Athlon X2 with similar performance and power usage combined with a low-power chipset with 4 or more SATA ports I'd already have one or more running here as servers. Heck, I'd even be happy to buy a system from a company that just threw away the crap Intel chipset and sold me an Atom with a decent chipset at a higher price.

But I doubt that either AMD or Intel really want to see the low-end server market move from $100 chips to $20 chips.
December 25, 2008 5:31:23 PM

spathotan said:
Nobody wants to pay for garbage, in this case intel GMA equiped laptops.


The GMA chips are crap, but I wouldn't call them garbage: most people don't buy laptops to play the latest games, and the crap GMA chip in my laptop will happily handle web browsing, DVDs and older games like Everquest and Guild Wars... whereas even Half-Life 2 gets it down to about 2fps.

That said, I can't see any rational reason for putting them in a laptop unless they're dirt cheap or have better capabilities in other areas than comparable chips with better graphics performance.
a b à CPUs
a c 171 Î Nvidia
December 25, 2008 6:05:04 PM

Aaah, I see, guess I'll just crawl back under my rock then. *mmm, comfort zone*
December 25, 2008 8:20:52 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20081223PD216.html
This is so sad. People that wanted sli on Intel, now people actually wanting gfx in netbooks, but NOOOOOOOOO, we cant get along. Its time both nVidia and Intel quit acting like each other and start making some money, and giving us what we want



By the time everybody who opposes AMD realizes they
were doing it better then Intel it'll be too late.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd0Of4PnpQk

Intel fanboys clearly need to reevaluate the way they think.

Intel has no intention on keeping customers happy.
They continue to produce chips that are too expensive to purchase and operate.

Here's a stress test on Intel platform:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeFyUiV6gxI&NR=1

Have you looked at the Penryn Die? Intel crammed all its circuitry onto one side and its cache on the other.
This creates an infrared imbalance. The Barcelona and Phenom chips from AMD are balanced and do not have this imbalance. It is better for keeping it cool.

As for the Antitrust suit, it is totally hilarious to see Intel stalling for time. The only reason they are is because they know they will be found guilty. The whole industry knows this too. Or don't any of you READ the news?

Now, flame on fanboys!
December 26, 2008 4:40:51 AM

Anyone can see 2 things here.
1. Intel doesnt really have a competitive product for the entirity of this market
2. Intel is preventing any options for this market

Its a nice argument to assume that these are only good for businesses, especially since in trying to expand this market youre extremely limited. I cant see why since Intel has a monopoly on this market, why it cant raise its prices and allow to widen the market overall. Itd be to Intels advantage at higher profits, and open up the market, thereby increasing sales as well. Its almost as if Intel just wants it their way, and no other way at all. Are they protecting certain OEMs that make regular laptops? Are they accepting that regular Joe would be happy with a cpu with as low a performance as ATOM and not invest in their higher arch? Anyone could slam Intel for doing this, or not doing this, either way, but I believe it goes deeper than that. Unfortunately, we may never find out those answers unless a true competitor shows up. Also, Id add that as for getting what Intel thinks is good for us, shows what a monopoly could mean down the road for any business in any form, where those businesses facing no true competition will do as they please, which will usually mean more money in their pockets, and narrowing the scope of progress
December 26, 2008 5:02:55 AM

you would be surprised at the market share intel has grabbed hold of... especially in non gaming/office OEM systems... i saw a statistic somewhere... probly on the folding@home site of the manufacturers market shares
December 26, 2008 5:22:01 AM

Yea, and for us at home users, in this case, its a problem. No one likes it when we see more and more console ported to PC games out every year, and Im thinking us home users will suffer in somewhat the same scenario, if we bow to this as being acceptable. I cant knock Intel for wanting to make money, as I cant knock nVidia still using just DX10, and changing these things costs money, neither improves our experience, nor does it give options, but only hinders progress. Thats why we need competition, as simple as reality being borne here
December 26, 2008 5:29:53 AM

JayDee, Intel came up with the Nettop and Netbook category. If anyone wants to compete with them then you need to come up with their own CPU and Chipset combination. I believe ARM is already doing just that. Using an ARM Processor and whatever they use for chipset. AMD is working on a higher end version of a Netbook. There is your competition.

I see only one way to legitimately for Nvidia to come out with their ION system using the Atom processor. Since Intel is only planning to sell the Atom together with the 945Gxxx chipset a integrator would buy the Intel Parts. Use the Atom with the Nvidia chipest and Nvidia would have to do the necessary validation of that combination and then the left over Intel chipset could be use in a lower performing laptop using pentium processor or something. That way the system integrator could sell both and not waste anything.
December 26, 2008 5:51:46 AM

That would require disassembly, higher costs, time, and some failures in process doing so, even without disassembly. Who made the first car? Does it matter? Times move quickly nowadays, and weve become used to having things now, not later. Thats just the way it is, and Intel is hindering this, for reasons not truly known.
I mentioned ARM and AMD, but whats stopping Intel right now? They started this market, why should they wait for someone else to expand it or lead it elsewhere? This could be dangerous for Intel down the road, as like nVidia, every day DX10 gets older, and newer games are adopting DX10.1, as theres finally some competition there, and DX10.1 becomes a viable improvement, dollar wise.

Innovation drives us, limitations hinder us. A manager just manages things already set, while a leader leads to newer things. Id like to see Intel lead us here, but they arent, even when given alternatives to do so. Theres reasons for this, and the longer Intel sits on this, the closer true competition will show up. My only question is, why are they waiting?
December 26, 2008 12:36:50 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
That would require disassembly, higher costs, time, and some failures in process doing so, even without disassembly.


Um... no. The chips (CPU and chipset) are bundled together cost-wise, not glued together. They come in separate packages.
December 26, 2008 1:29:00 PM

Read my links?
December 26, 2008 2:10:37 PM

yes the GMA chips are crap, but would you want a nettop with nvidia chipset in it, all that heat, they cant make one for a normal laptop what makes you think they can for a nettop
December 26, 2008 6:15:10 PM

Rangers it wouldnt be a 9800M GTS. It would be something that would at least let you run 3d aps with decent fps, that also wouldnt kill battery life. Probably on scale/less than a...8400M GT/GS. But i guess either way heat would be an issue like you say. My wifes HP dv6768 has a 8400M GS in it, bottom of the laptop is scalding hot after a little bit of EQ2 or what not.
December 26, 2008 7:31:58 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Read my links?


Yes. My point is, there's no "disassembly" required. "Bundled" means "you buy both together".
December 26, 2008 11:24:10 PM

Hey, what can I say? I loved that eggnog heheh, I meant exactly that, bundled, but i bungled bundle, so it was a blunder
!