Article: What do you think? Could this mark the beginning of the end of the need for high-end, $500 discrete graphics cards?
- I don't think the high-end graphic card will be obsolete or dropped any time soon. This tool is just another way for Intel to earn more money. I do agree with intel that PC games could run on an intel IGP chip, but with major graphic cutdowns.
The way I see it, we have pros and cons to this:
Pros:
- Game enabled PCs could cost alot less, and be avadible to a wide variety of users with diffrent budgets. This means more people would buy PCs for video games instead of consoles, for about the same price. BUT this would mean that Intel would have to step up their game by making IGP chips or the upcoming on-CPU graphic controllers capable of delevering PS3-level digital graphics for PC games running on Intel chipsets.
- This would infringe on the console market (PRO for me) and make more and more titles avadible for the PC. Also, this would increase PC game sales tenfold.
- Everyone could afford a gaming pc.
- Game developers could build a graphic preset into their games witch allows users to play modern games on intel IGP chips at decent framerates and visual quality presets, again, making modern PC gaming avadile for everyone.
Cons:
- The level of game graphics quality could drop or stagnate due to these hardware limitations (let's face it, an intel X4500 has about the same graphic power as a Geforce 4 MX 440.)
- High end graphics companys and their products could be a thing of the past (unlikely tough).
- Intel may decide to INCREASE the price of moherboards/chipsets with integrated graphics, thus getting us noware. (Trus in the Intel, the Intel will take as much of your monet as they can).
Other toughts.
I'd like to see an Intel integrated graphics solution for the i7, slapped on to the X58 chipset boards, coupled with a i940 and 6GB of high-end DDR3 meory (say 6GB of CL7.7.7.18 1600MHz DDR3 memory) run in 3D mark.
Until now, the on-board solution's main drawback was (and still is) no on board memory, witch means the chip must share with the sistem. This is very bad for performance. The GPU would get leftover bandwith and RAM memory, coupled with the latter at low speeds (say DDR2 667MHz), it makes for a GFX card with a 250MHz core, 32 or 64 bit memory interface, and say 256MB of memory running at 667MHz. Witch can be outperformed by a extremely low and GF7200 PCI-E.
If you slap-on some high perf. DDR3 memory, the performance shoud increase. For example: my sister owns an Acer notebook with integrated nvidia 7000m chipset. The graphics performance out of the box was horrible, unable to play even old games like Black & White 1.
I got a ideea and swapped out the 1 module of 2GB 533MHz of ram with a couple of Nania 1GB DDR800 CL5 modules. This (i hoped) would deliver faster memory for the on board GPU and double the memory bus (dual channel 128bit). The 3D Mark 01 score jumped from 2800pts to 5781pts. Impressive right? Imagine it reaching ~ 9000pts with DDR3 Memory.
Now - if INTEL would sit teir corporate butts down, and build a on board chip - witch could take advantage of the I7's 196bit memory interface and high-speed DDR3 memory, also bunp up the IGP's clock rate, things could get interesting.
That said, i leave you to talk amongst yourselves.