73% of x86 Processors Now Integrate Graphics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
It would be nice if Intel offered most of their CPUs without integrated graphics for cheaper. Most gamers would buy a i5-2500k without integrated graphics since they already use dedicated graphics cards.
 
Nivdia cant, Jen-Hsun Huang cant stand Intel, he will never pay the x86 License, thus admitting he needs intel to move forward.
You can bet they will continue with arm, although in the next two three years , I supect intel will put his mighty hands around arm neck of arm and put a lot of preasure on them and eventually getting rid of it.
 
It would be interesting if they would state the volume of sales instead of a percentage, so we can compare to other processors such as ARM which has sold 1.4 billion processors in 2011Q3 alone.
 
[citation][nom]jdamon113[/nom]Nivdia cant, Jen-Hsun Huang cant stand Intel, he will never pay the x86 License, thus admitting he needs intel to move forward. You can bet they will continue with arm, although in the next two three years , I supect intel will put his mighty hands around arm neck of arm and put a lot of preasure on them and eventually getting rid of it.[/citation]
Too many arms in there... how many limbs are we counting?
 
[citation][nom]jdamon113[/nom]Nivdia cant, Jen-Hsun Huang cant stand Intel, he will never pay the x86 License, thus admitting he needs intel to move forward. You can bet they will continue with arm, although in the next two three years , I supect intel will put his mighty hands around arm neck of arm and put a lot of preasure on them and eventually getting rid of it.[/citation]

Intels only advantage over ARM is the fact they fab their own processors. Everyone else ends up with TSMC and they aren't as innovative. In terms of design, fixed instruction width is definitely an advantage over x86, because then you don't waste tons of transistors decoding instructions. The end game of the ARM vs Intel battle will be which platform puts more performance per watt in the smallest transistor package - and ARM is way ahead in that right now.
 
[citation][nom]Zanny[/nom]Intels only advantage over ARM is the fact they fab their own processors. Everyone else ends up with TSMC and they aren't as innovative. In terms of design, fixed instruction width is definitely an advantage over x86, because then you don't waste tons of transistors decoding instructions. The end game of the ARM vs Intel battle will be which platform puts more performance per watt in the smallest transistor package - and ARM is way ahead in that right now.[/citation]
transistors needed for decoding instruction are well spend compared to transistors in cache 16MB for L2 and L3 in BD is madness,and cache of similar size will be needed if they began putting 16 cores in a diy
 
yeah, cpu+igp is teh future of average desktop pcs.
as igps get more and more powerful, pcs change with it. with the newer igps pcs like all in one desktops, a.i.o. touch-enabled pcs, [strike]netbook 2.0[/strike]ultrabooks sales gain traction.
amd's gain in mobile cpu market isn't incredible, people naturally responded to the apus' superiority (llano is probably the cheapest quadcore mobile cpu with desktop class igp while one can buy a whole laptop for the price of a quadcore moble i7).
amd's loss may be entirely credited to fx, 32 nm production problem, transition to 32 nm process and general overhyping inferior products (zambezi).
build on the gain, amd.. and release the revised fxes asap.
 
Two reasons, sandy bridge has no competition.

You can't not have integrated graphics on sandy bridge.


If there were two versions, I bet half of that would be integrated, furthermore
 
and this is news how? seriously, on a laptop the advantage to doing gpu on cpu is huge when it comes to power savings, sandybridge win
 
[citation][nom]nordlead[/nom]It would be nice if Intel offered most of their CPUs without integrated graphics for cheaper. Most gamers would buy a i5-2500k without integrated graphics since they already use dedicated graphics cards.[/citation]

Lets hope Ivy Bridge?
 
Intel is going to do whatever it wants to do because it absolutely obliterated AMD in the last round of CPU wars. $400 mainstream processor? They can do it if they want to.
 
[citation][nom]rodney_ws[/nom]Intel is going to do whatever it wants to do because it absolutely obliterated AMD in the last round of CPU wars. $400 mainstream processor? They can do it if they want to.[/citation]
Don't give them any ideas. :sarcastic:
 
you want cpus without igp? intel will release sb-e cpus with x79 chipset soon, they have no igp, oc friendly, priced really high, support pcie 3.0. x79 motherboards are already showing up in news articles.
 
Sorry but if you know ANYTHING at all about PCs you know that separate CPU and GPU is best not to mention the best value for the money.

Those that buy integrated either don't care or don't know better.
 
[citation][nom]legacy7955[/nom]Sorry but if you know ANYTHING at all about PCs you know that separate CPU and GPU is best not to mention the best value for the money. Those that buy integrated either don't care or don't know better.[/citation]
Anyone who actually WORKS in IT knows that integrated graphics (especially today's modern solutions) provide everything most users need. If you never use anything more 3d than Windows Aero, then dedicated graphics only ADD to the expense, while consuming additional power.

If you give someone off the street an Intel i3 box with HD2000 graphics, and an Intel i3 with a Nvidia 580 in it, they absolutely won't be able to tell the difference. I bet more users would appreciate Intel's Quicksync for editing home video footage, than 3d graphics ability in the nVidia 580 (obviously CUDA has the ability to accelerate video, but users are more likely to run into quicksync optimized apps, than CUDA apps going forward). .
 


Spoken like somebody that knows a little someth'n-someth'n. 😉 Thanks for shout'n out for those of us that WORK in the business.
 
no real difference between this and having it on the motherboard. until programmers take advantage of the gpu to assist the cpu in processing its just wasting my money. i dont want to buy the integrated graphics chip, please remove it from your cpu's so i pay less for your cpu's and can add a proper graphics card.
 
[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]no real difference between this and having it on the motherboard. until programmers take advantage of the gpu to assist the cpu in processing its just wasting my money. i dont want to buy the integrated graphics chip, please remove it from your cpu's so i pay less for your cpu's and can add a proper graphics card.[/citation]

I think you're only paying...what...$5-$10 for the IGP (that's just a subjective guess that I pulled out of my @$$). Its good to have in case your discreet GPU dies...at least you'd have something to fallback to.
 
[citation][nom]youssef 2010[/nom]This looks bad for AMD[/citation]

I don't see it that way. AMD's gaining in the markets they focused on. I think its smart that AMD has decided that competing with Intel in certain areas does not really help their business. As an enthusiast I can't say I'm happy with the path they've chosen, but I do respect it as an intelligent business decision.
It looks like AMD was right about little growth in the netbook market.
 
[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]no real difference between this and having it on the motherboard. until programmers take advantage of the gpu to assist the cpu in processing its just wasting my money. i dont want to buy the integrated graphics chip, please remove it from your cpu's so i pay less for your cpu's and can add a proper graphics card.[/citation]

Ha given its intel they will probably remove the igpu and charge your more for a version with out it. Why would they sell things for less?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom