It Looks Like Intel Could Begin Pushing Graphics Tech More Seriously

[duby229]

Yes it is, if people can't fucking read or ask questions to experts it's their own problem. Really, this applies to every product.

And gets stuff worth what they paid it for. People that does not do research before a consistent purchase is in for bad surprises, in any field.

And they do. A office PC sold as such will fulfill the expectations of driving screens and do productivity.

If someone has unrealistic expectations on it (like say playing AAA games) then it's his own problem.

No, you're wrong. It -IS- Intel's problem, because -in fact- that includes 75% of all computers. If you really think that 75% of all computers are not going to be gamed on,. then you sir are highly mistaken. In fact it is that 75% that game developers are forced to try and target. And that is how Intel has harmed PC gaming. For those games that can't target Intel's level of performance it eliminates a huge market for them. It's sad. It's a damn shame that strictly is Intel's fault.

[Marc Driftmeyer]

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

That line for Intel is about to take a massive drop as it keeps losing to Zen and its successors. Those iGPUs are tied their CPU dominance that has already passed its peak.

[starshipeleven]

No, you're wrong. It -IS- Intel's problem, because -in fact- that includes 75% of all computers. If you really think that 75% of all computers are not going to be gamed on,. then you sir are highly mistaken.

FYI: most people that aren't teens don't game. Gamers are a vocal minority.

Most people need a PC to go on Internet, check mail, write documents. Welcome to the boring world of adults.

In fact it is that 75% that game developers are forced to try and target. And that is how Intel has harmed PC gaming.

Please explain why pretty much any non-indie games refuse to work on Intel stuff or if they are light enough they work with quality reduced to bare minimum, because I was under the strong impression that PC gaming as a whole isn't giving a crap about them.

[duby229]

The proof is that any kind of benchmark done on Skylake that you can find on Google didn't detect any such issue.

Boot up windows 7 open a browser and scroll. That simple to check for yourself. I don't think your gonna find a benchmark for that.

[duby229]

FYI: most people that aren't teens don't game. Gamers are a vocal minority.

Most people need a PC to go on Internet, check mail, write documents. Welcome to the boring world of adults.

Please explain why pretty much any non-indie games refuse to work on Intel stuff or if they are light enough they work with quality reduced to bare minimum, because I was under the strong impression that PC gaming as a whole isn't giving a crap about them.

You're wrong again. PC gaming as a whole weakened considerably about a decade ago, and it was -because- of Intel's GPU hurting sales.

EDIT: https://www.engadget.com/2006/07/12/...ing-pc-gaming/

EDIT: And this moronic concept that adults don't game is completely retarded. Basically from my generation on up includes adult gamers.

[starshipeleven]

Yep, so you admmit freely that on every generation it is Intel's products that determine the bottom line? hmm? Even though it includes almost everything they have?

No, I did not say that.

So knowing that Intel's market share is what it is, and that almost none of them are capable of adequate gaming, You are actually saying 75% of -ALL- computer users shouldn't game at all because they bought a computer that wasn't meant for gaming.....

Come on, stop this, we get you are butthurt because you can't game on your PC.

Most people don't need to game, they go out, fuck each other, play stupid games like golf, go shooting at the range because they need to be able to use a rifle to defend themselves from... well, whatever their stupid fears are, and whatever.

[starshipeleven]

Boot up windows 7 open a browser and scroll. That simple to check for yourself. I don't think your gonna find a benchmark for that.

Browser issues are browser's. (Firefox can do that for example, also on Win10 or Linux)

[starshipeleven]

You're wrong again. PC gaming as a whole weakened considerably about a decade ago, and it was -because- of Intel's GPU hurting sales.

EDIT: https://www.engadget.com/2006/07/12/...ing-pc-gaming/

Neat, an article full of baseless claims.

[duby229]

Browser issues are browser's. (Firefox can do that for example, also on Win10 or Linux)

But windows can't tear, huh? Yes it can and in fact does badly.

[duby229]

No, I did not say that.

Come on, stop this, we get you are butthurt because you can't game on your PC.

Most people don't need to game, they go out, fuck each other, play stupid games like golf, go shooting at the range because they need to be able to use a rifle to defend themselves from... well, whatever their stupid fears are, and whatever.

Those aren't the only things that people do. And who do you think you are to tell people that because they chose to buy an Intel system, (almost definitely at a sales reps recommendation) that they shouldn't be gaming? Really?