News Intel Arc Branding Announced: 'Alchemist' Discrete GPUs Land In Q1 2022

[InvalidError]

remember intel main reason to enter discrete GPU market is not about to win the graphic race. they do it to disrupt nvidia main source of revenue.

It will take 3-5 years for Intel to build enough brand recognition and trust in the dGPU space to make a dent in AMD and Nvidia's combined market share.

Depending on how well DG2/ARC does, it could be the i740 all over again with Intel scrapping the whole thing due to underwhelming sales and leaving customers stranded with garbage drivers. That is Intel's current dGPU legacy.

 

[jkflipflop98]

They were fined because they were making deals with OEMs that stipulated that the OEMs would not purchase products from Intel's competitors. In exchange, Intel would sell them CPUs for cheap, at or below cost in some cases IIRC. Kinda important to details to leave out when claiming that Intel gets fined just for selling products cheaply.

Yeah it's amazing how this rule gets overlooked a million times a day.

Why can't I get a Mountain Dew to drink at a movie theater? Because Coca-Cola has made a deal with Regal Cinemas to give them free soda so long as they don't use a Pepsi product. It's exactly the same thing.

 

[spongiemaster]

Yeah it's amazing how this rule gets overlooked a million times a day.

Why can't I get a Mountain Dew to drink at a movie theater? Because Coca-Cola has made a deal with Regal Cinemas to give them free soda so long as they don't use a Pepsi product. It's exactly the same thing.

Regal theaters switched back to Pepsi products last year. Why would Regal do that if they were getting free soda from Coca Cola? Is Pepsi paying Regal to use their soda? Coca Cola was obviously not giving all their product away for free to Regal. Financially screwing yourself to try and screw the competition is not a common business practice.

 

[TerryLaze]

No. Your understanding of competition law and that decision is misguided.

Well that's not helping me understand it any better, please elaborate.

And I do understand why they fined intel, nobody else could make and sell CPUs as cheaply as intel so there was no competition at that price point ergo anti-competition.
But they still got fined just for selling their CPUs cheaply, without any proof of that being below cost for intel.

 

[TerryLaze]

It will take 3-5 years for Intel to build enough brand recognition and trust in the dGPU space to make a dent in AMD and Nvidia's combined market share.

Depending on how well DG2/ARC does, it could be the i740 all over again with Intel scrapping the whole thing due to underwhelming sales and leaving customers stranded with garbage drivers. That is Intel's current dGPU legacy.

They are not going to sell to end users (much)
If they can match a 3060-3070 level card in price and performance then OEMs are going to be all over these cards to churn out prebuild systems.
The only question is if intel can make enough of them.
If the cards are terribad and there is going to be backlash from consumers complaining about how bad they are then sure, it's gonna be a disaster.

 

[deesider]

Well that's not helping me understand it any better, please elaborate.

And I do understand why they fined intel, nobody else could make and sell CPUs as cheaply as intel so there was no competition at that price point ergo anti-competition.
But they still got fined just for selling their CPUs cheaply, without any proof of that being below cost for intel.

Intel were not fined for selling CPUs cheaper than AMD - that is not anti-competitive - that is what competition is.

Intel were fined for using their dominant position in the market to diminish competition by offering rebates for exclusivity. That was found to be anti-competitive because if AMD (or any hypothetical other as efficient market participant) were to offer the same deal no OEM would accept it because they would lose sales due to much higher demand for Intel - since they had a dominant position in the market. Consequently most of the OEMs accepted Intel's deal because if they didn't they would be at a cost disadvantage with their competitors. The result was an increase in market share for Intel by diminishing competition.

In other words, just selling at a discount is not anti-competitive. Using rebates for exclusivity from a dominant position to stifle competition is.

If Intel were to sell GPUs cheaper than Nvidia or AMD that would not be anti-competitive. It would in fact be great for competition. The margins on GPUs are much higher than people seem to appreciate.

If Intel were to require bundling of their GPUs with their CPUs, then that would likely be a breach of anti-trust law.

 

[InvalidError]

If they can match a 3060-3070 level card in price and performance then OEMs are going to be all over these cards to churn out prebuild systems.

They'd run into the same problem of brand recognition in prebuilt too - people who know anything about computers will likely be willing to pay extra to have Nvidia or AMD graphics instead of Intel while those who don't and aren't looking for a PC specifically for gaming will probably pick something without dGPU to save $200+.

 

[TerryLaze]

Intel were not fined for selling CPUs cheaper than AMD - that is not anti-competitive - that is what competition is.

Intel were fined for using their dominant position in the market to diminish competition by offering rebates for exclusivity. That was found to be anti-competitive because if AMD (or any hypothetical other as efficient market participant) were to offer the same deal no OEM would accept it because they would lose sales due to much higher demand for Intel - since they had a dominant position in the market. Consequently most of the OEMs accepted Intel's deal because if they didn't they would be at a cost disadvantage with their competitors. The result was an increase in market share for Intel by diminishing competition.

Nope, read it again.
They didn't prove any "offering rebates for exclusivity" they are (almost) literary saying that if a company as big as that offers any kind of loyalty rebate it could destroy other companies.
The two thing are very different.
https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CP170090EN-1.pdf

They'd run into the same problem of brand recognition in prebuilt too - people who know anything about computers will likely be willing to pay extra to have Nvidia or AMD graphics instead of Intel while those who don't and aren't looking for a PC specifically for gaming will probably pick something without dGPU to save $200+.

Willing to pay more, yes. Willing to pay more and wait 3months or more, way less.
Supply of GPUs isn't going to get better until the next gen releases and those will evaporate real quick.

 

[InvalidError]

Willing to pay more, yes. Willing to pay more and wait 3months or more, way less.
Supply of GPUs isn't going to get better until the next gen releases and those will evaporate real quick.

The RX6600 is still in stock in many places, retailers say they have many more on the way and Nvidia is allegedly aiming to drown the RX6600's launch. If both are true, which we should find out soon enough, the GPU drought will be mostly over by year's end.

 

[Eximo]

... Come on intel "ARC"... really?

ARC.. thats it ? 😞

Thats all a multi billion dollar company can come with as a new brand name in 2021, after several years of developing a product?

Dear God, they really need some kids around, and I mean real small kids that will surelly come up with better names than ARC.

A lot of Intel's branding doesn't escape the original codenames thanks to media reporting. Actually one of their smarter moves to call it Discrete Graphics 1 and 2, which are terrible names.

iDGAF - 1000, 2000, would have been excellent.

Xeon (Or Xenon as everyone commonly says)
Xe (My personal most hated, since it leaves to many pronunciation options)
Itanium
Core
Celeron
Pentium (Five ium)
Iris (Another odd branding)


Core Graphics might have been interesting. Computer Generated (CG) (I think that is an Apple developer tool name)

Could have gone down the team blue angle, but Azure, Sapphire, is taken... and they already used Sapphire Rapids. Cobalt, Cerulean

I can see why they struggled.

 

[deesider]

Nope, read it again.

Sure, lets have a look:

According to the Commission, the abuse was characterised by several measures adopted by Intel vis-à-vis its own customers (computer manufacturers) and a European retailer of microelectronic devices, Media-Saturn-Holding.Accordingly, Intel granted rebates to four major computer manufacturers (Dell, Lenovo, HP and NEC) on the condition that they purchased from Intel all, or almost all, of their x86 CPUs. Similarly, Intel awarded payments to Media-Saturn, which were conditioned on the latter selling exclusively computers containing Intel’s x86 CPUs. According to the Commission, those rebates and payments induced the loyalty of the four manufacturers listed above and of Media-Saturn, and thus significantly diminished the ability of Intel’s competitors to compete on the merits of their x86 CPUs. Intel’s anti-competitive conduct thereby resulted in a reduction of consumer choice and in lower incentives to innovate.

As determined by the Commission, the rebates in exchange for exclusivity were found to be anti-competitive.

As regards that complaint, the Court of Justice notes that the General Court confirmed the Commission’s line of argument that loyalty rebates granted by an undertaking in a dominant position were, by their very nature, capable of restricting competition such that an analysis of all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, an as efficient competitor test (‘AEC test’) were not necessary.

On appeal the Court of Justice affirmed the finding by the Commission. Importantly, in this passage, 'undertaking' is a legal term referring to a promise. The undertaking in this respect is the granting of exclusivity.

In summary, using rebates in exchange for exclusivity from a dominant position in the market to stifle competition is anti-competitive.

Undercutting your rivals is itself not anti-competitive. If Intel want to gain market share by selling cheap GPUs then they certainly should and would not be restricted from doing so.

 

[TerryLaze]

On appeal the Court of Justice affirmed the finding by the Commission. Importantly, in this passage, 'undertaking' is a legal term referring to a promise. The undertaking in this respect is the granting of exclusivity.

In summary, using rebates in exchange for exclusivity from a dominant position in the market to stifle competition is anti-competitive.

https://taxguru.in/company-law/meaning-undertaking-section-180-company-act-2013.html
Undertaking is the general definition for a company that does business.
You can substitute "an undertaking" with "a company"
‘any business or any work or project which one engages in or attempts as an enterprise analogous to business or trade’

" rebates granted by an undertaking in a dominant position were, "
" rebates granted by the granting of exclusivity in a dominant position were, "
" rebates granted by a company in a dominant position were, "
What makes more (any) sense?