Intel to Use PowerVR Graphics in New Atom CPU?

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
Interesting, DX10.1 Support as well, hmmm, shall see where this pops up!
 

COLGeek

Cybernaut
Moderator
While it will likely be an improvement over the current Atom/GPU offerings, it is still likely to be an underwhelming implementation. When we get the benchmarks, we can pass judgment then, but I wouldn't bet the farm on any huge increases in overall performance (there will still be an Atom in the mix after all).
 
G

Guest

Guest
This is Intel conceding defeat on graphics, by licensing somebody else's architecture. People give them way too much credit for Sandy Bridge graphics, only a few SKUs have the "good" graphics, and those aren't even that good. It equates out to the most entry-level discrete card you can buy, which still can't do much.
 

internetlad

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2011
1,080
0
19,310
10
[citation][nom]concession_stand[/nom]It equates out to the most entry-level discrete card you can buy, which still can't do much.[/citation]

but is still more than what 95% of PC users need.
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,540
2
22,795
2
Gee...

AMD already has Fusion CPUs with DX11 that use less power than Atom...

Want to see more AMD on the market, they have the better product in this area.
 
G

Guest

Guest
internetlad: Really, so 95% of users don't need graphics capable of running the most simple of 3d applications? You know, applications might actually leverage 3d capabilities if the lowest common denominator wasn't Intel integrated. Heck, by what you're saying, people don't need things like Aero or Compiz, or GPU accelerated web browsers... Let's all buy Intel because they're 10% faster than AMD, who cares if the AMD part can enable features that came with my PC, and the Intel cannot.
 
Intel doesn't want nVidia making money off them and they don't want to loose share to AMD. The Power VR may or may not be as fast as ION or the GPU in Fusion, but may end up preforming better in games if the the Atom gets a good increase in CPU performance. That's due to the wimpy CPU performance of current Fusion parts -_-
 

mchuf

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2010
204
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]megamanx00[/nom]Intel doesn't want nVidia making money off them and they don't want to loose share to AMD. The Power VR may or may not be as fast as ION or the GPU in Fusion, but may end up preforming better in games if the the Atom gets a good increase in CPU performance. That's due to the wimpy CPU performance of current Fusion parts -_-[/citation]


If Intel knew how to make gpu's they wouldn't have to worry about either company.
 

fir_ser

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2011
739
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]mchuf[/nom]If Intel knew how to make gpu's they wouldn't have to worry about either company.[/citation]
Your statement is true.
 

Aravind Aarumugam

Distinguished
May 11, 2011
32
0
18,530
0
Intel doesn't want nVidia making money off them and they don't want to loose share to AMD. The Power VR may or may not be as fast as ION or the GPU in Fusion, but may end up preforming better in games if the the Atom gets a good increase in CPU performance. That's due to the wimpy CPU performance of current Fusion parts -_-
I believe that would never happen. Atom can't play some of the games even an casual gamer want's to play and intel would not risk giving Atom a boost if it is given then it'll eat up the i3 and the old dual and c2d's market share which seem to be an better option.
 

cybr

Distinguished
Jul 12, 2010
39
0
18,530
0
Aravind has a point... the econo-chip is now required to perform admirably for gaming. No longer are the econo-chips able to be a competitive processor unless it has video/gaming ability, for use in tablets, etc.
 
G

Guest

Guest
megamanX00: If the CPU performance of the entry level fusion parts is "wimpy" but it still beats the fastest Atom CPU, what does that make Atom?

PS: It won't do Intel a bit of good to clock Atom to 2.1ghz, it still won't beat the "wimpy" AMD CPU.
 

RobinPanties

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2007
44
0
18,530
0
[citation][nom]cybr[/nom]Aravind has a point... the econo-chip is now required to perform admirably for gaming. No longer are the econo-chips able to be a competitive processor unless it has video/gaming ability, for use in tablets, etc.[/citation]
Haven't you heard? tablets are replacing netbooks... [according to some analysts; obviously that's debatable] anyway, atom chips were for netbooks. These will be still be for netbooks possibly, but more likely targeting tablets... they offer less, but command a higher price, and currently the market is doing well. They support DirectX, so they can make Windows 7 tablet makers happy, Intel already provides desktop chips for Apple, they might be looking to steal some business by snagging iPad business as well, they do afterall have a working relationship with Apple these days, and if Apple is already using chips based on PowerVR, they might find it easier and cheaper to just buy all their chips from Intel... and Aravind's point about Intel not "risking" a boost in Atom's performance because it would cut into i3's marketshare doesn't seem to add up to me because:
1. i3's are much more powerful, designed for laptops and desktops, so, these chips aren't going to cut into i3 business unless (see #2)
2. Tablets start to cut into laptop business significantly, which would then passively hurt i3 sales

The only problem with that logic is, if Intel pulls it off, then they sell more Atom's which are probably cheaper to make at the expense of selling less i3's. Either way they win, which is LESS risky. If they stay away from tablets and tablets continue to boom and/or completely kill the laptop market... then Intel isn't selling i3's anyways... so, it'd be more risky for them to put all their eggs into the i3 basket...

IMO, Intel needs a short term strategic move against ARM chips. ARM chips are small & low powered, but they are quickly adding cores and speed. However, they can't compare to the general purpose logic of Intel desktop chips... but, Intel CPU's are similtaneously decreasing in size and adding cores and speed. It's only a matter of time before Intel multi-core offerings are small and low power enough to compete in tiny form factors...
 

fir_ser

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2011
739
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]AMD is on it's last leg. Intel is so far ahead in the CPU market they will never catch up...STILL waiting on Bulldozer (been saying that for what 2 years now). Intel is going for the throat now in the "APU" market. Sad to see AMD dying a slow death when they were toe to toe with Intel before Core 2 blew them out of the water. AMD has never recovered.[/citation]
Hopefully AMD will be back, and next month in June I hope I’ll be surprised will AMD’s new products especially Bulldozer.
 

silverblue

Distinguished
Jul 22, 2009
1,199
4
19,285
0
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]AMD is on it's last leg. Intel is so far ahead in the CPU market they will never catch up...STILL waiting on Bulldozer (been saying that for what 2 years now). Intel is going for the throat now in the "APU" market. Sad to see AMD dying a slow death when they were toe to toe with Intel before Core 2 blew them out of the water. AMD has never recovered.[/citation]

AMD's doing rather well with its Fusion initiative and it's making money on a level that the past few years can't approach. Bulldozer was heavily delayed but a huge reason for that would be because AMD completely tore up the design and started from scratch again in 2008 (well, if you believe Semi-Accurate). Intel has a good way to go before it can combat AMD in a traditionally strong AMD area, and by the time anything decent appears, Enhanced Bobcat will be here (and while we're at it, Enhanced Bulldozer).

AMD is far from dead, and I doubt Abu Dhabi would allow it to die anyway.
 

fir_ser

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2011
739
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]silverblue[/nom]AMD's doing rather well with its Fusion initiative and it's making money on a level that the past few years can't approach. Bulldozer was heavily delayed but a huge reason for that would be because AMD completely tore up the design and started from scratch again in 2008 (well, if you believe Semi-Accurate). Intel has a good way to go before it can combat AMD in a traditionally strong AMD area, and by the time anything decent appears, Enhanced Bobcat will be here (and while we're at it, Enhanced Bulldozer).AMD is far from dead, and I doubt Abu Dhabi would allow it to die anyway.[/citation]
Good thoughts silverblue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS