Intel?s New Graphics Core to Support DirectX 10 Features ? Slides.

[Gamer X]

From X-bit Labs

Meanwhile ATI Technologies and Nvidia Corp., both leading suppliers of standalone graphics processors, are doing their best to introduce high-performance graphics processing units that are compliant with DirectX 10 next-generation application programming interface, Intel Corp., who is leading supplier of built-in graphics cores, may introduce a cost-effective solution that boasts with at least some DirectX 10 capabilities already this year.

Several slides, which presumably come from a roadmap of Intel Corp., that have been published over HKEPC web-site suggest that Intel?s forthcoming G965 chipset will have a built-in graphics core that not only supports DirectX 9.0 shader model 3.0, but also will have DirectX 10 shader model 4.0 functionality. In case the information is correct, this may be the first time for Intel Corp. to offer the latest multimedia functionality with its integrated graphics cores.

The Intel G965 graphics core will have relatively powerful support for 3D technologies in general: it will have improved early Z technology which reduces the load on memory bandwidth, it will support 16x anisotropic filtering, 32-bit precision floating point precision calculations and so on. As reported previously, it will also have hardware decoding of WMV9b HD high-definition video streams. In addition, the new integrated graphics core from the world?s largest chipmaker will provide HDMI output. It is unclear whether the new graphics core will support HDCP encryption as well.

Leading 3D functionality support not only means some benefits for Intel Corp., but poses some danger to suppliers of standalone graphics processors for add-in cards or mobile computers, primarily such companies as ATI Technologies, Nvidia Corp. and S3 Graphics. Usually separate graphics cards cost from $70 to $650, but while built-in cores cannot provide as many benefits and performance of a high-end graphics cards, users who are getting low-end board do not care much about performance, but take into account support for some latest capabilities, such as media playback. With advanced graphics core that sports forthcoming application programming interface (API) Intel may take some market from entry-level graphics cards, provided that Intel is able to supply its new chipsets in quantities.

Intel did not comment on the news-story.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

it'll still get pwned into the dust

 

[Cookie Monster]

Actually it would be interesting because this could make a big impact on ATi/NV. The IGP market is big, and intel which could be first with the DX10 GPUs would be dominating.

 

[Sable]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31239

Since all the company cares about is the size of the die, do not expect spectacular features or performance from the integrated part - although it does support Shader Model 4.0 and is capable of addressing 256MB of system memory - all that you will get is a two-pipeline GPU equipped with four to six Shader units.

Even by today's standards, neither four or six Shader units are something special - you can already find more powerful chips in stores - the performance of G965 will be way below the levels of the Radeon X1300 and GeForce 7300. While X1300 and 7300 do not have the feature set for the DirectX 10 API, the performance level of these GPUs is still way above that of the upcoming Intel part.

One developer of a DX10 game planned to come out in fall of 2007 told us: "We can all do a fallback to SM3.0 or 2.0 for slower graphics parts. However, the product has to have horsepower - judging by our previous experiences with Intel's integrated hell, we'll just spend more man-hours to make our game run faster than a slideshow."

All in all, ATI and Nvidia have a really good chance of taking a large bite out of Intel's lion-share of the worldwide graphics chip market - they need only make a decent integrated part to see chipset sales go through the roof. However, we do not expect that to happen. It would kill their cash cows, the lower-end models.

Basically it's gonna have the option to use the features but not the horsepower to do anything with them. Usual pants Intel onboard graphics.

 

[F1shF4t]

LOL well whats the use of all the new dx stuff when the thing will be too slow to use it... this is like dx9 on a fx5200, sure some things its usefull like if u wanna play bf2 and u cant afford a new card (argument why fx5200 is better than 9200se, but even then there is a hack which allows older cards too play, not well although)... but really all this thing will produce is a good looking slide show.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake
LOL well whats the use of all the new dx stuff when the thing will be too slow to use it... this is like dx9 on a fx5200, sure some things its usefull like if u wanna play bf2 and u cant afford a new card (argument why fx5200 is better than 9200se, but even then there is a hack which allows older cards too play, not well although)... but really all this thing will produce is a good looking slide show.

Fact is that the IGP/lowend market dominates the graphics arena. (Mid end could count as well).

 

[DAPUNISHER]

It will be very good for HTPC use, if it can decode H.264 too. I will be surprised if it isn't HDCP compliant as well. Gaming isn't what this IGP is designed for, though their marketing ept. might try to make the consumer think otherwise

 

[Lonyo]

Oh wow, Hardware T&L finally!

 

[jiffylube1024]

LOL! DX10 with nowhere near enough horsepower to actually use it. *Yawn*.

Good for Intel to reach this milestone. Unfortunately their new GPU may have a Porsche exterior but it still only carries a 3-cylinder 50hp engine .

 

[dguy6789]

What is ironic is when the Geforce 4 MX cards came out, people complained that they did not support the latest features. When the FX series came out and all of them supported all the features, everyone still complained.

It shows how society will never be happy.

Some information: Integrated Graphics is 80%+ of the video card market. This is the market that matters to the future of your precious nVidia or ATi. Sub $100 video cards are the next big market. Mid and high end are proprietary and not needed, and account for a tiny fraction of profits.

 

[KeithTalent]

This is obviously all about marketing. The fact is none of those features will be even remotely close to usable (with decent playability I mean), but all that really matters is that Intel can say it has the features. The majority of people who know nothing about this stuff will fall for it and that is what Intel is banking on.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
It will be very good for HTPC use, if it can decode H.264 too. I will be surprised if it isn't HDCP compliant as well. Gaming isn't what this IGP is designed for, though their marketing ept. might try to make the consumer think otherwise

Ding ding ding. Integrated chipsets are a huge marketshare - this could make for a lot of 965G-based HTPCs and "Media Center" Vista boxen.

- M4H

 

[Goi]

It's there probably just so that Vista's Aero thingy can be used. Since integrated graphics account for the majority of PCs out there, having this support is huge for windows vista PC users of the future.

 

[Matt2]

I'm sellin all my stuff to go pick this thing up!

Intel FTW!

 

[Gamer X]

Originally posted by: Goi
It's there probably just so that Vista's Aero thingy can be used. Since integrated graphics account for the majority of PCs out there, having this support is huge for windows vista PC users of the future.

I think you nailed it. This is the only use for it.

 

[DeathReborn]

Originally posted by: Goi
It's there probably just so that Vista's Aero thingy can be used. Since integrated graphics account for the majority of PCs out there, having this support is huge for windows vista PC users of the future.

I think you're right but I also think that with all the features in Vista running it will just be "slides" lol.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
What is ironic is when the Geforce 4 MX cards came out, people complained that they did not support the latest features. When the FX series came out and all of them supported all the features, everyone still complained.

It shows how society will never be happy.

People want to think that their $50 card is totally awesome. But its a $50 card.

The GF4MX was a better platform in my opinion. If you're going cheap, you have to make some compromises. The GF4MX may have thrown out nothing but ugly DX7 images, but at least it had enough horsepower to get the job done most of the time. The FX5200 is the same idea as this intel integrated here...supports all the new stuff, but doesn't give you the horses to use it. So whats the point?

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: dguy6789
What is ironic is when the Geforce 4 MX cards came out, people complained that they did not support the latest features. When the FX series came out and all of them supported all the features, everyone still complained.

It shows how society will never be happy.

People want to think that their $50 card is totally awesome. But its a $50 card.

The GF4MX was a better platform in my opinion. If you're going cheap, you have to make some compromises. The GF4MX may have thrown out nothing but ugly DX7 images, but at least it had enough horsepower to get the job done most of the time. The FX5200 is the same idea as this intel integrated here...supports all the new stuff, but doesn't give you the horses to use it. So whats the point?

While the FX5200 could not run the latest directx9 games at maximum settings, the point was, at least it could run them. You can play FarCry on an Fx5200 with lower settings and have some really fancy water and effects.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: dguy6789
What is ironic is when the Geforce 4 MX cards came out, people complained that they did not support the latest features. When the FX series came out and all of them supported all the features, everyone still complained.

It shows how society will never be happy.

People want to think that their $50 card is totally awesome. But its a $50 card.

The GF4MX was a better platform in my opinion. If you're going cheap, you have to make some compromises. The GF4MX may have thrown out nothing but ugly DX7 images, but at least it had enough horsepower to get the job done most of the time. The FX5200 is the same idea as this intel integrated here...supports all the new stuff, but doesn't give you the horses to use it. So whats the point?

Marketing

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Some information: Integrated Graphics is 80%+ of the video card market. This is the market that matters to the future of your precious nVidia or ATi. Sub $100 video cards are the next big market. Mid and high end are proprietary and not needed, and account for a tiny fraction of profits.

So far integrated graphics don't mean much to either company (particularly Nvidia). They both are comfortable selling mid to high end GPU's (where profit margins are significantly higher), are supplying chipsets for the motherboard market, and are selling GPU's to next-gen console manufacturers. Plus Nvidia is branching out into other markets (eg mobile phone processors).

Integrated video accounts for profit only due to sheer numbers; per-unit profits are infinitessimal. Plus motherboard chipset designers usually have say on whose integrated chipset goes onto which motherboard; with ATI and Nvidia both improving their chipset userbases (ATI starting from zero recently), they will be able to use their own flavour of integrated GPU's on their own chipsets in the future, where Intel and SiS dominated before.

It's more of a laugh than anything that Intel's the first with DX 10, and we all know that "relatively powerful" in the integrated chipset market means utterly laughable compared to any sort of add-in card. If anything it will make the GPU's more expensive for Intel to produce. But good for them. They'll support Aero Glass now .

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Some information: Integrated Graphics is 80%+ of the video card market. This is the market that matters to the future of your precious nVidia or ATi. Sub $100 video cards are the next big market. Mid and high end are proprietary and not needed, and account for a tiny fraction of profits.

So far integrated graphics don't mean much to either company (particularly Nvidia). They both are comfortable selling mid to high end GPU's (where profit margins are significantly higher), are supplying chipsets for the motherboard market, and are selling GPU's to next-gen console manufacturers. Plus Nvidia is branching out into other markets (eg mobile phone processors).

Integrated video accounts for profit only due to sheer numbers; per-unit profits are infinitessimal. Plus motherboard chipset designers usually have say on whose integrated chipset goes onto which motherboard; with ATI and Nvidia both improving their chipset userbases (ATI starting from zero recently), they will be able to use their own flavour of integrated GPU's on their own chipsets in the future, where Intel and SiS dominated before.

It's more of a laugh than anything that Intel's the first with DX 10, and we all know that "relatively powerful" in the integrated chipset market means utterly laughable compared to any sort of add-in card. If anything it will make the GPU's more expensive for Intel to produce. But good for them. They'll support Aero Glass now .

I beg to differ. While ATI's integrated graphics chip business is not as big as Intel's, they (ATI) still have a significant presense in notebook integrated graphics. Not only do they make money off these (though you're correct in that it's more profit by volume), it also gives them higher visibility since the ATI control panel is inevitably plastered in the taskbar tray area.

I also think this new graphics chipset is for HTPC's and running Vista's Aero desktop effects. First thing that popped into my mind was Vista.