Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

So is Intel Really Doomed, or What?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2009 1:54:59 AM

I mean, when you've got a long-time ally (or "ally") like Nvidia actually releasing these cartoons taking shots at Intel, what can Intel do, what can Intel do??

I was first thinking that heh, no problem, Intel can just start supporting ATI more. Then I realized that, for all purposes, AMD and ATI are one and the same. Maybe Intel should just forget about coming out with its own GPUs (which have never been good anyway)?

More about : intel doomed

a b à CPUs
December 21, 2009 2:09:15 AM

Intel is Intel. They underestimated what it would take to develop a GPU. If they managed to do so, I think they will exhibit behavior that will get them in trouble sooner or latter (perhaps not allowing SLI or Crossfire on their boards). Personally I think Intel should stay away from GPUs until they can make a decent IGP first :D .
m
0
l
December 21, 2009 2:19:02 AM

megamanx00 said:
Intel is Intel. They underestimated what it would take to develop a GPU. If they managed to do so, I think they will exhibit behavior that will get them in trouble sooner or latter (perhaps not allowing SLI or Crossfire on their boards). Personally I think Intel should stay away from GPUs until they can make a decent IGP first :D .


^+1

I would say Nvidia would also be doomed until they manage to make that fake Fermi card reality. Intel has other business to attend to other than GPUs (CPU) and I think they should just stick with it.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2009 3:22:00 AM

r_manic said:
I mean, when you've got a long-time ally (or "ally") like Nvidia actually releasing these cartoons taking shots at Intel, what can Intel do, what can Intel do??

I was first thinking that heh, no problem, Intel can just start supporting ATI more. Then I realized that, for all purposes, AMD and ATI are one and the same. Maybe Intel should just forget about coming out with its own GPUs (which have never been good anyway)?


Well if you want a fresh perspective on this issue, there is a Blog post over at XCPUs here: http://tinyurl.com/ybq47mb


Quote:
PC Performance has posted an article citing a NY Times blog entry, Has the F.T.C. Opened the Door for the Great Chip War? - Bits Blog - NYTimes.com. Before this came out, my personal (kept private) opinion was that this was really at the root of the recent FTC action. My rationale? Well, AMD/Intel already settled and spelled out what was and was not proper on paper, while the FTC can still take action on this, based on my current understanding of volume discounts, etc. etc., the FTC doesn't have a particularly strong case to expand on what AMD and Intel already agreed upon, other than to make the same argument about conditional deals. All of this apparently is now water under the bridge.
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
December 21, 2009 3:52:52 AM

I personally think the FTC wont do much. It can't without hindering a free market because every rule they set is set for the industry.

They can't really fine Intel for anything that AMD was going on about because that was settled.

As for the GPU, I hope Intel keeps at it. Personally I am sick of nV having a big head like they are the best when they can't even get a decent DX11 GPU out faster than ATI.

That and nV spits on every gen of DX that comes out. DX10 was delayed and also lost some new features to DX10.1 and DX11 because nV couldn't agree to it.

I see Intels GPU as a way of shutting nV up and putting them back to work on GPUs instead of cartoons.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2009 2:02:16 PM

^+1 a third gpu company would be good

also theirs would be native x86 instructions as well as gpu instructions
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2009 4:28:20 PM

mindless728 said:
^+1 a third gpu company would be good

also theirs would be native x86 instructions as well as gpu instructions



While I agree an addition to the market would be welcomed, I'm not entirely convinced of the value of running x86 instructions natively on the GPU. In the context of running graphics (which some fool apparently believes is a GPU's actual purpose), in order to get there the industry would have to rewrite their tools in order to program for the thing. And, x86's strong suit is *not* multi threaded code, which would be necessary in order to take advantage of a GPU's architecture.

I'd be open to enlightened instruction otherwise, but it seems to be to be more a case where someone thought "Here's a neat tool... And hey!! Here's another neat tool... How cool would it be to shove them together?", and then forgetting the part where a lot of thought and developement comes into play as to how the two would need to work together in order to do much more than provide marketing fluff and run FoH.
m
0
l
December 21, 2009 4:36:23 PM

jimmysmitty said:
I personally think the FTC wont do much. It can't without hindering a free market because every rule they set is set for the industry.

They can't really fine Intel for anything that AMD was going on about because that was settled.



The settlement between intel and AMD contained the stipulation that AMD couldn't sue intel anymore for their practices. It has absolutely nothing to do with the FTC, and the FTC has every right to take intel to court if they feel intel broke the law. The difference is a civil vs criminal suit. Look them up.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2009 9:01:53 PM

Scotteq said:
While I agree an addition to the market would be welcomed, I'm not entirely convinced of the value of running x86 instructions natively on the GPU. In the context of running graphics (which some fool apparently believes is a GPU's actual purpose), in order to get there the industry would have to rewrite their tools in order to program for the thing. And, x86's strong suit is *not* multi threaded code, which would be necessary in order to take advantage of a GPU's architecture.

I'd be open to enlightened instruction otherwise, but it seems to be to be more a case where someone thought "Here's a neat tool... And hey!! Here's another neat tool... How cool would it be to shove them together?", and then forgetting the part where a lot of thought and developement comes into play as to how the two would need to work together in order to do much more than provide marketing fluff and run FoH.


well i am interested in the extreme threading, i am a computer science student looking into GPU accelerated cryptography

though it isn't that hard to do in CUDA, ATI Stream (Brook+), opencl or DirectCompute. It would just be nice to have x86 native in the GPU
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2009 9:25:53 PM

We have a 37 page thread on this, you should know the answer by now, or be thoroughly confused, one of the two :pt1cable: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2009 1:26:27 AM

I don't believe intel is in any real trouble unless the following things happen.

1. AMD graphics card only run on AMD chipsets, forcing intel system to use NVIDIA GPUs

2. CUDA gets so advanced that you can hook up a HDD to the card and boot windows (or at least linux) w/o a motherboard, CPU or RAM.

Until then intel users will buy nvidia gpu's despite the number of cartoons NVIDIA draws.
m
0
l
December 22, 2009 1:31:23 AM

PsyKhiqZero said:
1. AMD graphics card only run on AMD chipsets, forcing intel system to use NVIDIA GPUs.


Less likely to happen. Why would AMD limit its products to their own turf when they are currently looking for ways to increase revenue? This will cause them to lose money rather than the opposite.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2009 4:16:46 AM

For the sake of argument, what kind of action can Intel take against NVIDIA for the GPU maker's recent contempt?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2009 5:32:26 AM

masterjaw said:
Less likely to happen. Why would AMD limit its products to their own turf when they are currently looking for ways to increase revenue? This will cause them to lose money rather than the opposite.


I wasn't saying that amd would lock their products to their chipsets, only that intel would be in serious trouble if they did.

@ r_manic
intel can't do a thing to nvidia legally. Does intel charge nvidia for making intel chipsets? If not I suppose they could start.
m
0
l
December 22, 2009 5:49:29 AM

PsyKhiqZero said:
I wasn't saying that amd would lock their products to their chipsets, only that intel would be in serious trouble if they did.


That's why I said it is less likely to happen. Why do AMD haven't done this kind of scheme yet if it would cause Intel trouble? Because the one who would be in deep s**t would be AMD, not Intel IMO. Depriving your customers the right to buy your products because of this kind of limit won't gain you profit.
m
0
l
December 22, 2009 6:06:43 AM

Half of these responses sounds like my own.
If the x86 license continues its devaluation, and more players come into the market, and if Intels competitors are clicking well, and LRB never surfaces, Intel will be in trouble, big time.
None, some or all of this could happen, and alot resides on the FTCs decision, and Intels competitors of course.
This puts Intel in a strange position, as theyre usually in control, and it appears that the FTC is bound to lesson Intels controls, and not just with AMD, but in many aspects of Intels activities.
Any way you put it, things have permanently changed for Intel, and itll never be the same IMHO
m
0
l
December 22, 2009 8:28:37 AM

mindless728 said:
well i am interested in the extreme threading, i am a computer science student looking into GPU accelerated cryptography

though it isn't that hard to do in CUDA, ATI Stream (Brook+), opencl or DirectCompute. It would just be nice to have x86 native in the GPU

How about that movie Avatar!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2009 9:21:34 AM

audioAl said:
How about that movie Avatar!


haven't watched and not really interested, i have not found myself liking a lot of movies that have come out recently
m
0
l
!