Why does intel suck?

[piesquared]

Serious question. With a market cap and R&D exceeding 20x that of their competitors, it's amazing that they get destroyed by every competitor in the industry regarding GPU performance. And, their CPU performance lead evaporates in multi threaded workloads. Do they need better hardware and software engineers?

Honest question, no flamebaiting or bashing necessary. It's not a secret that intel have the worst graphics in the industry, it's unbelievable that with the amount of resources available they can't produce anything that remotely challenges competing products.

Pie, your license to troll has been revoked.
-ViRGE

 

[Durvelle27]

not another one of these threads

*sigh*

 

[piesquared]

not another one of these threads

*sigh*

Seems to be the way anandtech wants to roll. Anyway, it's a question i've always wondered about. How come intel can't engineer anything that competes in graphics, and why does their lead evaporate in multithreaded workloads?

 

[inf64]

Ok I see what you did there . Should be fun if the same posters from before posted in this thread too,just to compare "now" and "then" attitudes .

PS I don't like these kind of topics, just to be clear.

 

[mrmt]

It's not a secret that intel have the worst graphics in the industry, it's unbelievable that with the amount of resources available they can't produce anything that remotely challenges competing products.[/b]

Maybe you could explain to us why both Nvidia and AMD are shipping less dGPU each generation since Westmere. You know, Intel IGP sucks and they refuse to improve it at all, plus there is such added value in graphics for most people, I really can't understand why this market trend.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Even though this thread is inherently flame bait, the question of why Intel is so horrible at GPUs is a legit one. They are not lacking funds, or fabrication capability.

 

[jpiniero]

Even though this thread is inherently flame bait, the question of why Intel is so horrible at GPUs is a legit one. They are not lacking funds, or fabrication capability.

OEMs aren't asking for it. Haswell GT3 is only happening because Apple asked for it - and they might end up being the only customer.

 

[piesquared]

Maybe you could explain to us why both Nvidia and AMD are shipping less dGPU each generation since Westmere. You know, Intel IGP sucks and they refuse to improve it at all, plus there is such added value in graphics for most people, I really can't understand why this market trend.

Get real. What you said has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything, other than intel's graphics are riding their CPU success. It has no bearing whatsoever on performance or quality. Remember MS changed their minimum specs on Vista so intel could sell something, which again has nothing to do with technical merits but monopoly powers. Any self respecting enthusiast would laugh at your rebutal. However it is a common strategy for intel apologists to bring out the "but look at marketshare" fallacy. If intel's graphics were judged on technical merit like everyone else in the industry is, they fail miserably.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Maybe because most people don't care that much about GPU performance or heavily multithreaded workloads?

Nah, that can't be it.

 

[AnandThenMan]

OEMs aren't asking for it.

OEMs do what Intel tells them to do for the most part.

Maybe because most people don't care that much about GPU performance or heavily multithreaded workloads?

Nah, that can't be it.

I see on a regular basis people bewildered with Intel graphics, but they just assume there is nothing better or that's just the way it is. The average computer user is utterly clueless.

 

[inf64]

GT3 won't be THAT much faster than GT2 version since the clock is way down. Still it will have better perf./watt which is what intel wanted from the start.

 

[piesquared]

Maybe because most people don't care that much about GPU performance or heavily multithreaded workloads?

Nah, that can't be it.

Says who? How do you know that most people don't care about GPU performance? For that matter, how do you know that most people care about CPU performance? And no, the market doesn't prove that, it proves that a monopoly can sell ice to Eskimos.

 

[teh_pwnerer]

Intel sucked big time during the AMD 64 and AMD X2 period. It's funny how the Intel fan boys don't remember that. Maybe they weren't alive then. :biggrin:

 

[mrmt]

Even though this thread is inherently flame bait, the question of why Intel is so horrible at GPUs is a legit one. They are not lacking funds, or fabrication capability.

They simply didn't take the same asinine route that Dirk and his crew took, which was to couple a good big IGP with an anemic big CPU to get the bloated dies that they have to sell for peanuts. It is more a question of sound management from Intel part in taking an slow, incremental route than to go ballistic on die size and kill the company's gross margins.

I would not call IVB IGP horrible btw. They are almost with parity features with AMD and Nvidia and can run most games at low/medium quality.

 

[alyarb]

Intel is making business AND design decisions around factors that don't involve your scorekeeping interests. You guys do realize that IVB is smaller than A5X right? And that Trinity is 43% larger than IVB?

Per area, I think it's a fine GPU that meets their needs and that of most cost-conscious consumers who just want to give their CPU and battery a break from the basic stuff.

I'm sure if intel devoted 3 billion transistors worth of IVB EUs, nested under a pyramid of schedulers and caches, they would have something very decent. And maybe, just maybe, that super fickle 1% of the market represented by forum goons would consider buying it. But they are more trouble than they are worth.

intel really isn't looking at performance as much as they are looking at hassle per profit

 

[AnandThenMan]

They simply didn't take the same asinine route that Dirk and his crew took, which was to couple a good big IGP with an anemic big CPU to get the bloated dies that they have to sell for peanuts. It is more a question of sound management from Intel part in taking an slow, incremental route than to go ballistic on die size and kill the company's gross margins.

How does this have anything to do with the merits of Intel's GPUs?

I would not call IVB IGP horrible btw. They are almost with parity features with AMD and Nvidia and can run most games at low/medium quality.

It's crap, plain and simple.

intel really isn't looking at performance as much as they are looking at hassle per profit

This is not a good thing for consumers. BTW, the actual experience on the mobile AMD systems is excellent, more enjoyable than Intel.

 

[mrmt]

Get real. What you said has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything, other than intel's graphics are riding their CPU success.

Well, the graphics are riding on their CPU success? But who brought CPU here? Forget the CPU, I'm talking about IGP, not CPU. And you still haven't answered my question. Intel graphics sucks, why aren't OEM and customers clamoring for more dGPU from AMD and Nvidia? Why we see less and less dGPU sales and why AMD Trinity is with an smaller MSRP than Llano? You know, Trinity GPU is better than Llano, more value for customers, why can't AMD make more money out of it? Why isn't Trinity gaining share from Intel just like Athlon did at its zenith?

 

[AnandThenMan]

And you still haven't answered my question. Intel graphics sucks, why aren't OEM and customers clamoring for more dGPU from AMD and Nvidia?

The same reason the Pentium 4 was a sales hit.

But I love how quickly this has turned into talking all about AMD's failures lol.

 

[jpiniero]

Intel graphics sucks, why aren't OEM and customers clamoring for more dGPU from AMD and Nvidia

Because there really isn't a need unless you play games or happen to use CAD or something.

 

[mrmt]

How does this have anything to do with the merits of Intel's GPUs?

Oh, nothing. Sure management decisions don't impact on final products. You know, upper management spends all the day surfing the web and leaves engineering to do its job without any kind of guidance.

It's crap, plain and simple.

Oh, that's *your* opinion. Review sites don't think like you, and market numbers also don't. The fact that we are seeing less dGPUs from both major players and they both present smaller gross margins for consumer GPUs should say something about the quality of Intel IGP. But maybe it's too much for some people to see a market trend. Some people only realized that AMD was FUBAR with Bulldozer when stock reached the low 2's this month.

 

[hokies83]

LoL Vote for Internet Troll Thread of the Year lol.

 

[piesquared]

Well, the graphics are riding on their CPU success? But who brought CPU here? Forget the CPU, I'm talking about IGP, not CPU. And you still haven't answered my question. Intel graphics sucks, why aren't OEM and customers clamoring for more dGPU from AMD and Nvidia? Why we see less and less dGPU sales and why AMD Trinity is with an smaller MSRP than Llano? You know, Trinity GPU is better than Llano, more value for customers, why can't AMD make more money out of it? Why isn't Trinity gaining share from Intel just like Athlon did at its zenith?

You can't talk about intel's slide show projector without talking about CPU's. Their graphics marketshare is without a doubt due to their CPU marketshare. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make regarding discrete GPU's.

 

[hokies83]

I only Care About Intel's Cpus if i want a Gpu ill look at Nvidia

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Says who?

Intel's marketing people.

 

[AnandThenMan]

You must be chocked, not having won it this year.