Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It Looks Like Intel Could Begin Pushing Graphics Tech More Seriously

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

  • It Looks Like Intel Could Begin Pushing Graphics Tech More Seriously

    Phoronix: It Looks Like Intel Could Begin Pushing Graphics Tech More Seriously

    It looks like with the next few generations of Intel processors, they will be coming with more serious graphics upgrades...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...fx-Gen10-Gen12

  • #2
    Great. So they're going in the opposite direction of what people want.

    How many people want to spend $400 on an i7 CPU and care anything about the graphics? It's just a waste of die area and money. Put CPU cores there instead.

    Comment


    • #3
      First of all, in most cases iGPU is just a waste of cpu die area. It makes sense in low end products. And that's about it. Most people would prefer 50%-100% more CPU cores than an iGPU they will never use, because most of the people who buy a fast and expensive CPU couple it with a decent discrete graphics card. Or make the chip smaller and 50% cheaper, and if people want mediocre graphics that much, the remainder from the CPU price can go into a low end graphics card, that will still be much better than it's money worth in the form of a iGPU. I am puzzled as to why intel is doing this, is it because they love shoving useless stuff down people's throats, or to claim graphics market share, even if their "graphics" sucks even at most basic settings.

      Second, adding more "gen"s by no means implies they are taking it seriously. They've already been through many "gen"s and iGPU performance has always been mediocre to say the least. The least sucky of their graphics, iris pro, comes at such a price premium you are honestly better off with a discrete card. Sure, they have been beefing up iGPU performance, bug that doesn't really catch up on the development in the gaming industry, for contemporary games iGPU is as sucky as it has ever been.

      Lastly, they were "gonna take graphics seriously" with that thing they used to cal larrabee which was supposed to be "real graphics" and was supposed to be released back in 2010... but then it got cancelled. In short, the big news is that after 10 there is 11 and then there is 12. Informative.


      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by johnc View Post
        Great. So they're going in the opposite direction of what people want.

        How many people want to spend $400 on an i7 CPU and care anything about the graphics? It's just a waste of die area and money. Put CPU cores there instead.
        As a software developer, a powerful CPU with decent built in graphics suits me fine - I want my next developer workstation to be able to power a 4K monitor or two, but it doesn't need to be able to play games on them, just render lots of screen real estate.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by johnc View Post
          Great. So they're going in the opposite direction of what people want.

          How many people want to spend $400 on an i7 CPU and care anything about the graphics? It's just a waste of die area and money. Put CPU cores there instead.
          Their previous models already beat low end models from competitors. They basically killed the competition. Many office users are quite happy with the iGPU. Now they will make them faster, that is, capable of doing more basic office work and even casual games. How is that bad when most apps still can't use more than 2-4 cores? Even gamers want Intel CPUs as their single threaded single core perf is so great.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Michael_S View Post

            As a software developer, a powerful CPU with decent built in graphics suits me fine - I want my next developer workstation to be able to power a 4K monitor or two, but it doesn't need to be able to play games on them, just render lots of screen real estate.
            for office machines, Intel graphics is fine and has been for years now. I would be more than happy with a high end CPU with mid range graphics for my workstation (*looks at AMD*)!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by johnc View Post
              Great. So they're going in the opposite direction of what people want.
              When you look at these lines, what you think people wants? Only about 30% bying dGPUs? Nope, these are all together for AMD both dGPUs and APUs iGPUs also... you can be sure only about 25% maybe even less people so about that or less than 1/4 of the market buy any dGPUs







              Intel eated about 20% of the market in just 5 years with these iGPU improvments Well, that is not a whole reason why....

              I even think maybe max 20% of people need dGPUs today, as some percentage get laptop with additional dGPU even when they don't want these

              Or if you like, there are stats for that too... dGPUs increasing but slowly.




              That is about just PC Market share, that does not mean AMD can't make faster iGPUs, it is just that bussiness is also elsewhere - on gaming console market, these have fastest AMD iGPUs
              Last edited by dungeon; 07-15-2017, 10:27 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'd love Intel have better graphics because they serve as a floor for low end models from nVidia/AMD and game developers want to be playable in these cards.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Multiple people on this thread have called Intel graphics fine.... Really? Apparently you guys never worked in a computer repair shop. Almost all times when someone complains there games don't work well, or that there computer is too slow the solution is a clean up and a graphics card replacement or a new laptop sale. The reason why is usually Intel's incapable graphics. Literally the only product they have that can be called Ok-ish is Iris, and only the ones with eDRAM at that. And they are -WAY- overpriced.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                    Multiple people on this thread have called Intel graphics fine.... Really? Apparently you guys never worked in a computer repair shop. Almost all times when someone complains there games don't work well, or that there computer is too slow the solution is a clean up and a graphics card replacement or a new laptop sale. The reason why is usually Intel's incapable graphics. Literally the only product they have that can be called Ok-ish is Iris, and only the ones with eDRAM at that. And they are -WAY- overpriced.
                    I think the problem lies in windows and/or hdd. Just put something other than windows, and put ssd on those laptop. TADA.. The issues' solved.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X