Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Confirms Their Discrete GPU Plans For 2020

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    If these discreet GPU's are going to be anything like the post haswell IGP's with the firmware blobs in kernel, then avoid them and buy something else.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by notanoob View Post
      If these discreet GPU's are going to be anything like the post haswell IGP's with the firmware blobs in kernel, then avoid them and buy something else.
      You do realize current AMD and NVIDIA GPUs also require binary firmware blobs in the kernel for hardware acceleration?
      Michael Larabel
      http://www.michaellarabel.com/

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by kpedersen View Post
        If the drivers remain open, this will be great for the open-source community. I am quite happy to trade a little bit of speed for correctness.
        That's what I think, too. Even if it is half the speed of an RX580, but with drivers as stable as their current open source iGPU drivers, that would be very interesting to me.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Adarion View Post
          Uhoh. I wonder, I wonder. I wonder many things. Is Koduri using AMD-internal IP to bring intel's CPUs forward? Or is there some inofficial "deal" (an acquiescence between AMD + intel) anyway? Will those GPUs be capable more for computing or gaming? And will they be dongled to some management engine? Have all the restriction management stuff on it (DRM is usually intel's idea! HDCP, TCPA, it's all grown on intel's crap!)? Will there be a free driver that is not somehow obfuscatin things?

          Though I guess I'll stay with AMD anyway.
          Since it is fairly routine for vendors to reverse engineer eachother's new designs, I think it would be risky to do anything like that. Also, in terms of timing, Intel must already have been working on this stuff in earnest at least two to four years ago, so it's not likely to hinge primarily on AMD trade secrets.

          Comment


          • #15
            Let's hope that this time Intel sticks with it even if the first earnings reports are not encouraging. They've had lots of dumb ideas over the last few years, but they're made dumber by the fact that they never followed through.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by microcode View Post
              Also, in terms of timing, Intel must already have been working on this stuff in earnest at least two to four years ago. . .
              Agreed with regard to when Intel likely began working on this. My guess is that Intel began developing GVT-g (the development for which began a few years ago) with an eye toward competing with Nvidia GRID GPUs in the high-end GPU market.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by notanoob View Post
                If these discreet GPU's are going to be anything like the post haswell IGP's with the firmware blobs in kernel, then avoid them and buy something else.

                Originally posted by Michael View Post
                You do realize current AMD and NVIDIA GPUs also require binary firmware blobs in the kernel for hardware acceleration?
                AFAIK none of them (Intel, AMD, NVidia) require binary firmware blobs in the kernel.

                The blobs are hardware microcode images which are uploaded into the GPUs to control on-chip hardware.

                The uploading is done by kernel driver code simply because nothing else is allowed to touch the hardware, but saying the code is "in the kernel" suggests that it is executing there, which is not the case.
                Test signature

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by bridgman View Post




                  AFAIK none of them (Intel, AMD, NVidia) require binary firmware blobs in the kernel.

                  The blobs are hardware microcode images which are uploaded into the GPUs to control on-chip hardware.

                  The uploading is done by kernel driver code simply because nothing else is allowed to touch the hardware, but saying the code is "in the kernel" suggests that it is executing there, which is not the case.
                  Right, apologies if the statement came out as unclear.
                  Michael Larabel
                  http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Gusar View Post
                    Well, they do make GPUs already, so it's not like they're starting completely from scratch. Just slapping a huge bunch of their current GPU execution units on a dedicated card and adding a few gigs of GDDR would produce something nice already.

                    Edit: Also, "Ravi"? Have you been watching too much iZombie? . Raja Koduri is the one Intel poached for AMD.
                    That would be assinine

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      I expect something like the RX580 sort of deal, would be VERY surprised if Intel can muster up a 1080ti beater, that would be nice but kinda wishful thinking. AMD is expected to get back into the game in early 2019, but that might not mean more powerful cards, just more efficient.

                      More efficient GPU's is good news for consoles I suppose but not so great for competition given the 1080ti will be quite long in the tooth by then, but still not beaten (thankfully that's what I rock). The industry needs the 1080ti to shift down in price like the 980ti did, giving people at the mid tier access to 4k and 60fps gaming (which the 1080ti can mostly manage).

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X