The bottom end: AMD accepting Intel is good enough? (+Poll)

[Lonyo]

So... AMD are releasing three GPUs, the cheapest card of which is still over $100.

Are we to assume that AMD thinks the sub $100 market is now already completely dead, and that IB will be good enough for people who might consider sub-$100 cards?

Given that Intel makes up the vast majority of CPU sales, having nothing to compete with Intel integrated graphics at the low end seems kind of silly.
While there are various rebadged 6000 series (and 5000) GPUs being sold by OEMs as low end 7000 series cards, they are OEM only.

If you want an HTPC card, you have to spend $100 and get a 60w TDP GPU in the HD7750, or get a 6000 series card which is (somewhat) less power efficient.
Or you go NV, who rumours indicate will still be making somewhat low end GPUs.

It seems like AMD doesn't think people making an HTPC will want to get a low power card, and maybe I am making up a market in my head, but it seems like they have dropped the line too soon. Maybe in another year or two, when Ivybridge is the dominant CPU, with twice the IGP power of SB, it would make more sense. But now it seems like NV can basically move in and take the low power crown at the low end.

Is it too soon to drop the sub $100 GPU line? Are AMD making a mistake and gifting NV a reasonable (but low margin) market?

(I ask this as someone who recently bought a sub-$100 GPU for my HTPC, which has an Intel CPU with integrated graphics, Sandy Bridge based Pentium).

 

[busydude]

In addition to that.. AMD's own APUs are cannibalizing their sub $100 GPUs.

 

[Lonyo]

In addition to that.. AMD's own APUs are cannibalizing their sub $100 GPUs.

That doesn't really matter, AMD CPUs aren't that prevalent, since Intel has 80% of the market.
It would make sense for AMD to drop cheap GPUs if they had the IGP market, but fact is, they don't. They don't even have 20% of the consumer CPU market AFAIK. It's AMD Graphics vs Intel vs NV realistically.

 

[railven]

I'd personally never buy a sub $100 card unless it's a replacement to a card that is aging and was used for specific tasks (ie the board itself can't use an APU.)

But from the little I got to tinker with AMD's APU, them some decent IGPs in those little buggers. At least for low end crap, like DX9 catalog or WoW.

I haven't used an Intel IGP for anything heavier then web browsing (work computers) and it's awful at just that.

This system still has a Pentium D in it!

 

[Concillian]

Is it too soon to drop the sub $100 GPU line? Are AMD making a mistake and gifting NV a reasonable (but low margin) market?

(I ask this as someone who recently bought a sub-$100 GPU for my HTPC, which has an Intel CPU with integrated graphics, Sandy Bridge based Pentium).

I don't think it is. Primarily because they can keep that segment going with 40nm GPUs.

AMD is close to being pad limited at 128 bit on their 7750. They can't make a much cheaper GPU without dropping to 64bit. They can't keep bandwidth on 64bit from being anything but crippling without also using GDDR5 instead of DDR3. But dual channel DDR3 on APUs is 128 bit (but higher latency than on-card DDR3.) My guess is that the 28nm process is too expensive to make any other 128 bit GPU worthwhile, and 64 bit GPUs would face similar bandwidth limitations that the APUs do, making a 28nm part cost too much to be worthwhile.

It's likely that the economics of the 40nm vs. 28nm process are a big part of this decision, and most of use here have little to no knowledge of the specifics here, so can't even really play armchair CEO. Regardless, I don't think this is a simple decision.

 

[busydude]

That doesn't really matter, AMD CPUs aren't that prevalent, since Intel has 80% of the market.

Based on that logic... only Intel matters.. as they have 80% of the graphics market too.

 

[Cerb]

AMD would just be competing with themselves selling too much more low-end GPUs. Iff they can get their CPU act together, they will have no reason to offer anything under ~$75, and ~$100 would probably be a good minimum in 2-3 years.

 

[wahdangun]

the poll should said "amd integrated is good enough" because no way i will even touch intel iGP, the driver is subpar and the performance is very bad.

 

[wahdangun]

I don't think it is. Primarily because they can keep that segment going with 40nm GPUs.

AMD is close to being pad limited at 128 bit on their 7750. They can't make a much cheaper GPU without dropping to 64bit. They can't keep bandwidth on 64bit from being anything but crippling without also using GDDR5 instead of DDR3. But dual channel DDR3 on APUs is 128 bit (but higher latency than on-card DDR3.) My guess is that the 28nm process is too expensive to make any other 128 bit GPU worthwhile, and 64 bit GPUs would face similar bandwidth limitations that the APUs do, making a 28nm part cost too much to be worthwhile.

It's likely that the economics of the 40nm vs. 28nm process are a big part of this decision, and most of use here have little to no knowledge of the specifics here, so can't even really play armchair CEO. Regardless, I don't think this is a simple decision.

nah i don't think using 64bit + GDDR5 will be worth it, it can still achieve HD 4850 - HD 4870 performance.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I look at it like this, AMD would be better served putting resources into their integrated GPUs instead of a sub $100 unit. Right now a $100 card is marginal IMO, in a year I doubt there will be any value in such a part, AMD (and probably Intel) will make them irrelevant.

 

[Lonyo]

AMD would just be competing with themselves selling too much more low-end GPUs. Iff they can get their CPU act together, they will have no reason to offer anything under ~$75, and ~$100 would probably be a good minimum in 2-3 years.

Key being "in 2-3 years".
I think this generation is too soon, considering the below 7750 rebadged cards are OEJM only at the moment, and it doesn't look like there will be any 28nm cards. That means going forward there won't be anything lower power than the HD7750 potentially until the next gen process in discrete cards from AMD, and even theyn they might leave "sub 75w" as their lowest level (at the upper end of no PCI-e connector).

While that should be fine in 2~3 years, when we're on 22 or 20nm, for 28nm maybe it's too much.

 

[-Slacker-]

What are you people talking about? AMD hasn't released a sub-100 dollar card because they haven't got around it yet. They haven't even released their 28nm mid range yet...

Are we to assume that AMD thinks the sub $100 market is now already completely dead, and that IB will be good enough for people who might consider sub-$100 cards?

.........................................uh....

....no?

 

[AnandThenMan]

This very well could be the last generation AMD makes a sub $100 card, or sells one in volume. Integrated will get to that performance anyway and make such a product fairly pointless.

 

[Cerb]

While that should be fine in 2~3 years, when we're on 22 or 20nm, for 28nm maybe it's too much.

What does 28nm have to do with anything? Both AMD and NVidia still sell 40nm, and will likely do so for some time to come. The newest process is needed to fit more xtors and wires for a fast GPU, but they can be slow releasing 28nm low-end GPUs.

In 2-3 years, we will likely just be seeing the last 40nm parts disappear from stores. They need the smaller process for the high-end cards. They need good enough and cheap for the low end cards. Their rapid release of the low through high end GPUs in the last couple generations may not be how they are doing it this time.

 

[Lonyo]

What are you people talking about? AMD hasn't released a sub-100 dollar card because they haven't got around it yet. They haven't even released their 28nm mid range yet...




.........................................uh....

....no?

They have released an entire 7000 series in name.
The only physical card which isn't available is the 7800 series.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5291/

An entire lineup of 7000 series cards from 7300 to 7600, all 40nm and based on VLIW5.

 

[MrTeal]

I look at it like this, AMD would be better served putting resources into their integrated GPUs instead of a sub $100 unit. Right now a $100 card is marginal IMO, in a year I doubt there will be any value in such a part, AMD (and probably Intel) will make them irrelevant.

I don't think an iGPU will ever approach the power of a $100 card. By the time they catch up, the market will have moved on. Even at the introductory MSRP of $80 (you can buy them at $50 or less AR), a HD6570 is still way faster than Llano with DDR3-1866, let alone whatever Intel's offering.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I don't think an iGPU will ever approach the power of a $100 card.

It won't, but the performance delta will narrow to the point that a $100 card won't be a large volume part. That's how I see things playing out.

 

[Red Hawk]

APUs are only good for replacing the sub-$50 market, IMO, stuff like the Geforce 210, 520, and the Radeon HD 5450, 6450, etc. There are a good deal of cards below the $100 price point that are better than any current APU, such as the Radeon HD 5670 or 6670. The 6770 will probably see some time below $100 now that it's set to be replaced by the 7750.

 

[videoclone]

By the time all the low end under $100 HD6000 series cards are all sold out.... HD7750 will be a cheap sub $100 card and be the new entry point in performance... anything above that HD8750... will be faster and the new $150 parts.. its pretty simple when you think about it

Old tech price drops. ( after the low end 6000 series stock dry up) new tech replaces it in product lineup.

GCN "intergrated GPU's" in late 2012/13 will be as fast as HD6770

Making the sub $100 HD7750 . in late 2012/13 the only logical card to keep around.. anything under it will be replaced with GCN/CPGPUs

 

[Lepton87]

GCN "intergrated GPU's" in late 2012/13 will be as fast as HD6770

Making the sub $100 HD7750 . in late 2012/13 the only logical card to keep around.. anything under it will be replaced with GCN/CPGPUs

Want to bet that it's not going to happen until DDR4? Juniper has 76GB/s of bandwidth. How do you expect an integrated GPU, with less than half the bandwidth that it has to share with the CPU, to achieve the same performance?

 

[GotNoRice]

You either care about games or you don't.

If you don't, the current crop of Integrated graphics are just fine.

If you do, you're not doing yourself any favors with a <$100 card.

The few rare situations where I need a PCIE videocard that isn't particularly powerful, I'll just use an older/retired card like a ~9800GT.

 

[BD231]

It'll probably be the same deal with their gpu's as their CPU's, cancel one line so the other will sell better. AMD should make a PCI-E frame buffer for their APU's.

 

[Cerb]

You either care about games or you don't.

If you don't, the current crop of Integrated graphics are just fine.

If you do, you're not doing yourself any favors with a <$100 card.

That, unfortunately is not always the case. With Llano it generally is. With IB, it might be, but Intel's drivers are still not yet at the point needed to fully replace low-end NV and AMD cards, with current CPUs. Sometimes it's performance, sometimes compatibility, sometimes convenience (managing 2-3 displays, FI), but something is sometimes missing.

OTOH, Intel improves their drivers with HW, and it's getting better. Will it finally reach a proper inflection point with IB, Haswell, whatever comes after Haswell, or...? The question used to if they'll ever get there; now it's just when. I would not want to be AMD, with boatloads of low-end expensive GPUs on hand that AIB makers don't want, when that happens. Better to have a few cheap last-gen GPUs to get rid of, using the new expensive tech for products that are likely to have high demand, and that can command some margin.

 

[MrK6]

I don't think it is. Primarily because they can keep that segment going with 40nm GPUs.

AMD is close to being pad limited at 128 bit on their 7750. They can't make a much cheaper GPU without dropping to 64bit. They can't keep bandwidth on 64bit from being anything but crippling without also using GDDR5 instead of DDR3. But dual channel DDR3 on APUs is 128 bit (but higher latency than on-card DDR3.) My guess is that the 28nm process is too expensive to make any other 128 bit GPU worthwhile, and 64 bit GPUs would face similar bandwidth limitations that the APUs do, making a 28nm part cost too much to be worthwhile.

It's likely that the economics of the 40nm vs. 28nm process are a big part of this decision, and most of use here have little to no knowledge of the specifics here, so can't even really play armchair CEO. Regardless, I don't think this is a simple decision.

Nailed it. Tech's changing. It reminds me of sound cards losing out to onboard sound. I think HTPC duties are going to start falling on media-focused motherboards.

 

[Obsoleet]

It looks like the anti-sub$100 crowd is winning.

Integrated is good enough for that sort of computer + I would never buy a sub-$100 GPU= 26 votes

I would buy sub-$100 if making a low power comp/HTPC (even if the CPU had integrated graphics) + I already have bought one recently = 19 votes

This is from the enthusiast community. I think there would be even more votes for integrated from the mainstream consumer, because integrated would work for them.

Is it too soon to drop the sub $100 GPU line? The answer is clear- No.