Intel to Use PowerVR Graphics in New Atom CPU?

[Camikazi]

[citation][nom]mchuf[/nom]If Intel knew how to make gpu's they wouldn't have to worry about either company.[/citation]
Amazing how great they are at chipsets, CPUs, networking chip and other things but they can't make a decent GPU to save their lives.

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]tomtompiper[/nom]I am fairly sure GMA500 was a PowerVR chipset, and that has been in Atom chipsets for years.[/citation]Yeah, this isn't really news. A lot of integrated Intel graphics chipsets have been PowerVR designs. They're not even using PowerVR's fastest setups (multicore, MPx). [citation][nom]proton9[/nom]they should've tried to integrate the HD 3000 imho[/citation]Too big, too power hungry. Also the Atom isn't fast enough to really take advantage of it. That's like saying AMD should integrate the 65xx from Llano with their low-power Bobcat cores (like in a C-xx Ontario design). Doesn't make sense - if you want more power, you'd be better off at that point with a lower power Sandy Bridge variant with HD 2000.

 

[Aravind Aarumugam]

[citation][nom]RobinPanties[/nom]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 salesThe 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...[/citation]

I see your point, but i really don't think intel's r&d would do some magic to pop up an ultra efficient x86 in 3 months and already i see phone's and tabs running @1.2-1.5ghz (dual core).

As far as it goes to Intel getting into an pad is impossible, Apple would not let it happen...come on they are the ones who designed the A5 chip, they would like a hand at setting up a manufacturing unit at cupertino and i see samsung as a rel cheap alternative(sweat shops?!).
[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]
Keep dreaming big fella. I've never seen the company fight back much stronger.
Ever heard of ARM? . If what we've been hearing is true then anyone will be be easily interested in AMD.

If AMD had invested in a good PR/marketing campaign during 2001(Athlon xp+ series), i really belive AMD would have had a upper hand.

 

[Djhg2000]

I smell the end of wonderful Linux drivers...

Thanks a lot for killing the only proper vendor maintained open source graphics driver. Let's go back to waiting for an open source radeon driver with up to date features (you'd think we would have decent OpenGL 3 support by now).

 

[eddieroolz]

Intel's Atom has never been a strong performer in any meaningful area.

Corrected for truth

 

[silverblue]

I want to see the 6310 paired with two K10.5 cores at 1.6GHz to see how it performs, or at least a simulation.

 

[Wisecracker]

[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]

You guys need some new outrage and propaganda.


Remains to be seen whether PowerVR is the answer on Atom -- might be a step back from ION with certainly less to offer from HD2k/3k graphics.

With AMDs Krishna and Wichita APUs (quad at 28nm!) coming out at roughly the same time (with better hardware acceleration and graphics) Atom will need some magic to compete.

 

[silverblue]

Everyone thought Imagination Technologies were finished following the non-release of the successor to the Kyro II, a card which should've knocked the Radeon 9700 into second place... but look at the last couple of years. The point is, you can't ever completely rule AMD out.

 

[Guest]

great !