Tom's Hardware Guide: Financial Analysts Say Intel Killed the Discrete Graphics Card

[blastingcap]

An internet debate ending amicably? Very impressive *applauds*. I've read your and railven's posts and I have to say you guys have made some very insightful comments. It's always nice to see thoughtful discussions on forums.

Rail and I are basically talking past each other which is why I am cutting that discussion off. (That, and I think he's drawing too many conclusions from too little data over too short a timeframe. E.g., the PS4/XBOX720's GPU are rumored to be weak, but not necessarily because of Rail's arguments. I've also heard other reasons why. See, e.g., this pair of articles and the rise of xbox-as-streamer: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...nals-a-sea-change-in-the-console-industry.ars http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...ular-than-multiplayer-gaming-on-xbox-live.ars)

He's saying that raising the floor won't help at the high end. However, I never said that it definitely would help; only that it might help and would not hurt. One can see how both his statement and my statement could be true at the same time.

Put another way:

Some or all of Rail's points would be the same regardless of whether APUs grew commonplace and stronger.

I do not believe that the rise of APUs would exacerbate such problems and listed ways in which such a rise might help.

 

[3DVagabond]

Maybe I'm just optimistic, but I think stronger non-discrete GPUs are a GOOD thing. If Haswell's top part is as fast in practice as in theory, it'll be about as fast as a GTS 250 or HD4850 or so. Fast forward another couple of years, and even the mainstream Intel CPUs will probably have that level of performance.

Why is this is a good thing?

1. It raises the floor. If everyone has access to DX11 then maybe more gamedevs will use stuff like tessellation, rather than continue to plod along on DX9.

2. It dramatically increases the potential market size for graphically intense PC games, if everybody is forced to buy a decent GPU as part of a CPU. The percentage of computers able to run a modern game acceptably well is probably low right now, but imagine a situation where that number increases by a factor of 10. All of a sudden, the market size for graphically intense PC games increases by up to a factor of 10. For gamedevs, that could lead to more sales, more revenue, more profit, and thus more money to reinvest into making great games.

Yes it could also lead to stagnation if gamedevs figure they'll code for a certain level of graphics, namely, whatever consoles and APUs are capable of. But how is that any worse than the situation today? It can only get better, not worse, if strong APUs are commonplace.

3. Embedded GPUs may be repurposed, e.g., to drive hardware-accelerated physics.

Game Devs are "Scrooges". They are not our friends. They want to tip us upside down and shake our lunch money from our pockets. Doing anything to help PC gaming would only be the side effect of them making money. Or, an accident. Or, if someone held a gun to their heads.

(Sorry, couldn't help myself. )

^^I agree with blastingcap. PC gaming only stands to benefit from more people being able to play PC games affordably.

An IGP in "every" pc that could match console performance would be a huge boon for PC gaming. It would increase the base market dramatically.

PC games are quite affordable already.

We're talking about hardware.

 

[exar333]

Actually according to anandtechs review, llano uses less power when gaming (20% to be exact), and that test was made with ivybridge set to balanced performance and llano to max performance, so if both were set to max performance (as was done during the gaming benchmarks) the gap would probably be even wider.

Off course llano uses significantly more power during browsing (54%), however it actually uses less power during H.264 playback (13% less), and during idle (arguably the most common scenario), llano only uses about 17% more.

So it's not really that cut and dried.



Actually AMD is claiming twice the performance/watt with trinity compared to llano:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/249267/amd_targets_ultrabooks_shows_18mm_trinity_notebook.html

Off course AMD isn't really the most reliable source, and it's also unclear which SKUs they are comparing (apparently 17W tdp Trinity to 35W llano)

You have a good point there. I really want to see some real reviews to see how PD performs. As we did with BD, all we have are claims that can be interpreted in many different ways.

Regarding some of the other comments, I agree that having a solid IGP in most PCs will definitely help PC gaming. If the platform is there, the games will follow. This will only be more and more true if W8 gets traction on tablets and W7/8 Ultrabook sales stay strong. Mobile is key for gaming, and even if only 5% of games are 'good' by my viewpoint, 5% of 1,000,000 new games is better than 20% of 1,000.

 

[Blitzvogel]

As long as there is plenty of money to be made and there is enough demand, there will be discrete graphics. The time and energy going into the design of discrete GPUs used for PC gaming is utilized in other products, some of which garner much higher amounts of profit per unit sold like visual,server and scientific computing products such as Tesla, Quaddro, FireGL, etc. Those products are still needed highly, and of course there is the continued push for faster, more powerful GPUs. Thankfully, the technology of GPUs extends across such a wide arena of uses, to the benefit of many consumers who use GPU technology for business, science, arts/entertainment, as well as pleasure.

 

[theeedude]

CPUs have been "good enough" for average consumer since Core 2 Duo. The kind of consumer for whom IGP is "good enough" is not going to buy an expensive CPU, and he is not going to upgrade it often. He'll get an $500 laptop and keep it until something breaks. With fewer moving parts on PC's that'll be a while. If Intel wants to make more than a hundred dollars every few years off consumers, it needs to be pushing the "too much is never enough" attitude, not the "OK is good enough" attitude. It needs to convert average users into PC enthusiasts who will spend $1K+ on a new machine every couple of years, not try to convince enthusiasts that mediocre is good enough.

 

[3DVagabond]

CPUs have been "good enough" for average consumer since Core 2 Duo. The kind of consumer for whom IGP is "good enough" is not going to buy an expensive CPU, and he is not going to upgrade it often. He'll get an $500 laptop and keep it until something breaks. With fewer moving parts on PC's that'll be a while. If Intel wants to make more than a hundred dollars every few years off consumers, it needs to be pushing the "too much is never enough" attitude, not the "OK is good enough" attitude. It needs to convert average users into PC enthusiasts who will spend $1K+ on a new machine every couple of years, not try to convince enthusiasts that mediocre is good enough.

What you say is true and one way to look at it. I think Intel's goal though is to put the entire PC on a chip. One chip and they want to be the ones to make it.

 

[Lonbjerg]

What you say is true and one way to look at it. I think Intel's goal though is to put the entire PC on a chip. One chip and they want to be the ones to make it.

Beyond "Haswell" Intel do look like they will take the "one SoC to rule them all" approach...one way of getting total platform control

 

[Ventanni]

If the new display technology from tablets is ever passed on to the PC/Laptop market, we could see a rise in demand for more discrete GPUs in the future. If we continue to stick to 1080p though for a while though, it's no surprise GPUs continue to gain ground as the diminishing returns on framerate only reinforce iGPU's "good enough" playability factor.

With that said, AMD is in an interesting position here since the R&D from discrete GPUs is simply passed on to its APU division. Nvidia is in an entirely different boat however, and will need significant traction in its Tegra product line to improve revenue levels for future viability. Even still, they do seem to have pretty good mGPUs to pair with Intel notebooks. I have a notebook with Optimus in it, and I have to say, I really like it.

 

[Dark Shroud]

If the new display technology from tablets is ever passed on to the PC/Laptop market, we could see a rise in demand for more discrete GPUs in the future. If we continue to stick to 1080p though for a while though, it's no surprise GPUs continue to gain ground as the diminishing returns on framerate only reinforce iGPU's "good enough" playability factor.

New? Are you serious? Many of us have been running at higher than 1080p since the 90s. It was common for higher end monitors back in the 90s, see 16:10 aspect ratio. HDTVs have taken computer monitors a step backwards.

 

[Lonbjerg]

New? Are you serious? Many of us have been running at higher than 1080p since the 90s. It was common for higher end monitors back in the 90s, see 16:10 aspect ratio. HDTVs have taken computer monitors and their I.Q. a step backwards.

FYP

 

[Olikan]

CPUs have been "good enough" for average consumer since Core 2 Duo. The kind of consumer for whom IGP is "good enough" is not going to buy an expensive CPU, and he is not going to upgrade it often. He'll get an $500 laptop and keep it until something breaks. With fewer moving parts on PC's that'll be a while. If Intel wants to make more than a hundred dollars every few years off consumers, it needs to be pushing the "too much is never enough" attitude, not the "OK is good enough" attitude. It needs to convert average users into PC enthusiasts who will spend $1K+ on a new machine every couple of years, not try to convince enthusiasts that mediocre is good enough.

when good enough is truly good enough...it's point less to have more
remember the sound cards? what's the point in overclocking ddr3?

 

[Lonbjerg]

when good enough is truly good enough...it's point less to have more
remember the sound cards? what's the point in overclocking ddr3?

I still have a sound card.
If you cannot hear the difference between onboard sound and an IAB...then you really, really, really need to replace your tincans with proper speakers.

That audio quality in games so have taken a step backward due to consoles and their crapware is another story.

Gaming audio peaked with Battle Field 2...since it's been a steady, slow decline...

 

[Ventanni]

New? Are you serious? Many of us have been running at higher than 1080p since the 90s. It was common for higher end monitors back in the 90s, see 16:10 aspect ratio. HDTVs have taken computer monitors a step backwards.

I'm well aware of CRT technology. Even I had a 2048x1536x60hz monitor that did true color and had nearly zero response time, so yes, I very much agree with you that HDTV's have taken a step backwards overall. But, it was also an eyesore and guzzled more power than my 5.0 Mustang.

But when I mean "new", I'm referring to the pixel density levels of the new iPad. Extrapolate that to a 24-30" LED/LCD and we could maybe see a huge increase in demand for discrete GPUs.

 

[theeedude]

when good enough is truly good enough...it's point less to have more
remember the sound cards? what's the point in overclocking ddr3?

But what is truly good enough? For audio, it's beyond what the ears can discern, but if you are simulating reality, until things look and behave to the point where you can't tell if you are looking out of the window or looking into a computer screen, you can always improve more.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Already done. New consoles are supposedly going to use something like HD6670 GPUs despite launching in late 2013 at earliest.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...nals-a-sea-change-in-the-console-industry.ars

That has little to do with Integrated graphics...

If you ask me it's because there is no TV with higher than 1920x1080 and for most console games 30fps is enough (some games like fighting, action, and racing games go to 60fps). No need for GTX 680 performance levels for that. Especially if they fake things like burred textures in the distance etc. Consoles just don't need the same GPU horsepower.

 

[blastingcap]

That has little to do with Integrated graphics...

If you ask me it's because there is no TV with higher than 1920x1080 and for most console games 30fps is enough (some games like fighting, action, and racing games go to 60fps). No need for GTX 680 performance levels for that. Especially if they fake things like burred textures in the distance etc. Consoles just don't need the same GPU horsepower.

My comment was that next-gen video games will run on consoles that are supposedly running hd6670s (already invented). That level of performance may well be found in next-gen embedded GPUs. Haswell's theoretical speed is about triple Ivy Bridge's top part. That's around a HD 4850 level of performance. The floor will be raised quite a lot when it comes to graphics. Give it a few years.

For next-gen PC games, I hope the bar is raised higher than a hD 6670. Obviously.

 

[3DVagabond]

But what is truly good enough? For audio, it's beyond what the ears can discern, but if you are simulating reality, until things look and behave to the point where you can't tell if you are looking out of the window or looking into a computer screen, you can always improve more.

To go with what you are saying. Sound is good enough not because it sounds real, not even close, but because most people are clueless to what accurate sound reproduction is like. They do know what looks real though. Therefore the average person is much more demanding visually than aurally.

 

[Arkadrel]

Microsoft joins memory cube consortium

http://cdn.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4372335/Microsoft-joins-Memory-Cube-effort

Micron says it will deliver early next year 2 and 4 Gbyte versions of the Cube providing aggregate bi-directional bandwidth of up to 160 Gbytes/second.

Memory bandwidth of upto 160 Gb/s?


I always saw the memory bandwidth as the biggest issue with useing system memory + AMD APU or Intel's IGP's.



Right now if your running "DDR3-2133" your probably sitting at about 34 GB/s bandwidth.
A jump to 160GB/s or more by next year is a huge jump.


Im gonna be honest if feels like alot of the graphics is stagnated, and the biggest reason to get more powerfull cards is because you want to power 3 monitors resolutions. Most people dont want/need that.... I could see IGPs practically killing off GPU sales (atleast by much bigger %'s than they already have).

 

[Lonbjerg]

Microsoft joins memory cube consortium

http://cdn.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4372335/Microsoft-joins-Memory-Cube-effort



Memory bandwidth of upto 160 Gb/s?


I always saw the memory bandwidth as the biggest issue with useing system memory + AMD APU or Intel's IGP's.



Right now if your running "DDR3-2133" your probably sitting at about 34 GB/s bandwidth.
A jump to 160GB/s or more by next year is a huge jump.


Im gonna be honest if feels like alot of the graphics is stagnated, and the biggest reason to get more powerfull cards is because you want to power 3 monitors resolutions. Most people dont want/need that.... I could see IGPs practically killing off GPU sales (atleast by much bigger %'s than they already have).

NO...DX9 consoles port and rampant piracy is the reason.

True PC games will still break a highend PC (Crysis, Metro2033, ArmaII ect.) and make it weap.

It's not because hardware development has slowed down.
People just drink PR-coolaid and think crappy IQ @ low FPS = Powerfull IGP...*sigh*

 

[happysmiles]

Microsoft said they would push pc gaming with win 8,steam is getting more popular and igps are getting more powerful. Either way gpu makers are going to profit whether its discrete graphics or not. If anything pc gaming needs better marketing