Is Intel's entrance into the discreet GPU market a bad thing?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
3,967
720
126
A MB could support an IGP and 8core, maybe not max bandwidth to both simultaneously, but often you don't need to do that. AMD was almost certainly just looking to keep die size (and cost) down.
Far as I know there is also a limit to how much power you can shoot through a mobo's cpu socket before you have serious problems and feeding a gaming igpu and a high core count CPU at the same time would be too much.
 

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,208
4,940
136
4ea.jpg

But after all these years they still can only add an iGPU to a max quad core because otherwise it would become a ridiculous monstrosity that motherborads would just be incapable of supporting.

Raven Ridge is a laptop system-on-a-chip, and is designed first and foremost for that purpose. It just happens to also be sold in desktop configurations.

AMD has made plenty of big APUs- XB1, XB1X, PS4, PS4 Pro, and now that Chinese console.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeterScott

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,099
146
No.

So you think Intel will initially compete in sub $300 market which is where AMD competes, and just end up killing RTG? But what's the alternative, just AMD competing in sub $300? Might as well have 3. At least this way sub $300 customers have a good time.

They will scale up their cards eventually if they want to compete in the workstation.

I don't get how more competition is a bad thing, and even if RTG eventually folds then it's not less competition than before.

I think he means: "is it a bad thing for Intel," that competing in a large but heavily competitive, less margin-determined slice of the market is worth the investment. I think that's a fair point.

But, do any of us really care about Intel? No, I hope not. No one should really care about any of these companies and their specific profits, as long as competition remains and it all benefits the consumers.
 

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,505
2,248
136
I wonder what they told the bean counters to even get a go ahead on the dGPU? Will be interesting to see what market they go after and if they can make a competitive product.
 

GodisanAtheist

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
6,719
7,016
136
Okay but why would Intel exit in that case? Beating one of its competitors should open up enough market space for Intel to continue. If Intel is looking at the consumer dGPU market and thinking it can gain a 50%+ share overnight, beating Nvidia, then the people behind this project must be delusional, and I can't believe that. Even if first place is the end goal, forcing AMD out of the market would be an important step towards that, serving to embolden Intel. Yes, Intel has a tendency to canceling big projects but that must also be part of a learning process, it's hard to believe they would just throw massive cash at dGPUs just to see what happens, they must know that if they don't execute well, they would not be successful.

- Intel likes margins, and if its perpetually stuck competing in a low margin space, chasing NV with truckloads of R&D money for little return, I could very well see Intel exiting the space.

Anyone that has been associated with corporations or worked for one has likely experienced chasing some executive's pet project that gets approval thanks to yes men and group think. A lot of the time the only justification is "our competitors are doing it, so we have to also!!!". Neither Intel or AMD are like NV, the CEO isn't a founder and their missions and directives are relatively broad: I could see a "delusional" project getting the greenlight because responsibility is diffuse and no one wants to be the guy that says no (among other reasons).

Let's say that happens, and Nvidia stands alone. Judging by your other comments, you don't see AMD as a proper competitor to Nvidia - you said you were burned by both Polaris and Vega, and you don't seem to have much faith in AMD's future. Going by that logic Nvidia already stands alone, so how can Intel's entry into the market, or any sort of potential shake-up for that matter, be a bad thing? If AMD's jabs create sufficient competition I certainly don't see its effect now - it feels like the RTX cards as priced at the absolute maximum of consumer tolerance, forcing hands, an act of a complete monopolist.

Another thing that I noticed is that we're all discussing a scenario where Intel actually wants to compete in the general consumer and/or gaming market. Perhaps Intel wants to enter the non-general dGPU market which is a whole different story.

-AMD has struck from behind with incredible cards before, and personally I considered them competitive right through the Fury X. I only picked up my current 980Ti because people were offloading them used after the 1080 launched at absurdly low prices while the Fury line of cards were maintaining their value for a variety of reasons.

You're right in that I think AMD is not currently competitive, but they've been in this position before and I don't think currently noncompetitive means perpetually noncompetitive. They are subsisting on mining (gone for the time being), Vega's compute capabilities in the professional space, and the X60 and lower space (which looks like its going to get squeezed badly here soon).

Intel's entry can upset AMD's current revenue lines in the consumer space and assuming they go after the pro space, crimp AMD's revenue there as well. Lisa Su is no pushover and while there is certainly a scenario where AMD rises to the occasion, I think Dr. Su is just as likely to make the logical, unemotional choice (as many Intel CEOs have made for various product lines) of not chasing a bad proposition with good money and exiting the market.

Intel undoubtedly wants to enter the pro-market with their GPUs to offer the same kind of "complete package" solution AMD is able to offer. That might be a bigger problem for NV (which is piggybacking on Intel's CPUs at the moment) when Intel starts up its bundling practices there as well.
 

Cozarkian

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,352
95
91
As a result, we might end up with Intel losing interest in the small slice of the pie their investment returns, while AMD exits the discreet market to focus on custom designs due to the further reduction of market share.

. . .

Alternatively, Intel bumps off AMD's crippled RTG from the discreet market and thanks to deep coffers continues to push on, only to have one mediocre competitor replaced by another (with potentially terrible drivers, if history is a guide).

Alternatively, increased competition at the low-end causes AMD to shift its focus toward competing with the Nvidia at the high-end.

Alternatively, Intel has sufficient success the low end to persuade it to pursue competition at the high-end in the future, resulting in 3 companies competing across the entire market.

I'm intrigued by the impact of Intel/AMD both using freesync technology. That will make Intel/AMD more attractive to people that don't want to be locked into a single company, as people will be able to switch between the two companies' cards without replacing the monitor.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
136
I'm intrigued by the impact of Intel/AMD both using freesync technology. That will make Intel/AMD more attractive to people that don't want to be locked into a single company, as people will be able to switch between the two companies' cards without replacing the monitor.

Very good point. If Intel has viable gaming card, with Freesync support, it really boosts this open standard even more.

I am cheering for Intel even more now, I would really love G-Sync to die. The very idea of incompatible monitors is abhorrent.

I shouldn't have to consider my GPU brand when buying a monitor, or vice versa.
 

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
3,967
720
126
Raven Ridge is a laptop system-on-a-chip, and is designed first and foremost for that purpose. It just happens to also be sold in desktop configurations.

AMD has made plenty of big APUs- XB1, XB1X, PS4, PS4 Pro, and now that Chinese console.
Yes and those are at most quads and those in the consoles run at about only 1Ghz due to power and thermal restrictions.