Intel Discrete Graphics Chips Confirmed

Arun Demeure writes "There have been rumors of Intel's re-entry into discrete graphics for months. Now Beyond3D reports that Intel has copped to the project on their own site. They describe it as a 'many-core' architecture aimed at 'high-end client platforms,' but also extending to other market segments in the future, with 'plans for accelerated CPU integration.' This might also encourage others to follow Intel's strategy of open-sourcing their Linux drivers. So, better watch out NVIDIA and AMD/ATI — there's new competition on the horizon."

More competition

Competition is almost always good, so I look forward to this. I'd like to see Intel push ATI and Nvidia to create more power efficient chips, as it's quite rediculous right now.

Mostly they are efficient

If you look at the vast majority of chips either ATI or nVidia sell, they're actually pretty efficient.

But they invariably _have_ to have some benchmark-breaking super-card to grab the headlines with. The way it works is that while only a minority of people will actually buy the top-end graphics card, there are millions of people who just need a reminder that "nVidia is fast" or "ATIs are fast". They'll go to some benchmark site to see some "nVidia's 8800 GTX is faster than ATI's X1900XTX!" article (not entirely unexpected, it's one generation ahead), end up with some vague "nVidia is faster than ATI" idea, then go buy a 5200. Which is the lowest end of two generations behind the ATI, or 3 behind that 8800 GTX.

Both ATI and nVidia even went through times of not even trying to produce or sell much of their headline-grabbing card. And at least ATI always introduces their latest technology in their mid-range cards first, and they tend to be reasonably energy efficient cards too. But it's like a chicken contest: the one who pulls out loses. The moment one of them gave up on having an ultra-high end card at all, the benchmark sites and willy-waver forums would proclaim "company X loses the high performance graphics battle!"

I don't think Intel will manage to restore sanity in that arena, sadly. Most likely Intel will end up playing the same game, with one overclocked noisy card to grab the headlines for their saner cards.

Re:Mostly they are efficient

But they invariably _have_ to have some benchmark-breaking super-card to grab the headlines with. The way it works is that while only a minority of people will actually buy the top-end graphics card, there are millions of people who just need a reminder that "nVidia is fast" or "ATIs are fast". They'll go to some benchmark site to see some "nVidia's 8800 GTX is faster than ATI's X1900XTX!" article (not entirely unexpected, it's one generation ahead), end up with some vague "nVidia is faster than ATI" idea, then go buy a 5200. Which is the lowest end of two generations behind the ATI, or 3 behind that 8800 GTX.

Maybe I'm in the minority of people here, but I've always gone to sites that have actual reviews of the card I will potentially be buying. Companies have different models and each one of those models of product has its own advantages and disadvantages. I think a lot of the people that do a lot of shopping comparison online (i.e. most of the market that's actually going to be buying/installing their own graphics card) know this and do the same. ATI and Nvidia cards are only going to sell to a certain section of the market other than OEMs, and I doubt very severely that this is the approach that the type of people upgrading video cards would use in determining which card to purchase. I know I usually check out anandtech.com and look for benchmarks on the price range that I'm in.

This is like saying "Alpine stereos are better" and buying the lowest model level alpine without comparing it to anything else in the price range, nobody who is going to be installing it themselves can be that stupid, unless they were fanboys looking for a reason to hype up their favorite company anyway. Either way it doesn't look like a real market strategy to me.

Re:Mostly they are efficient

Actually, there are lots of "computer engineers" here who bought FX5200 or similar cards and think its the cat's meow.
"Oooh look! 256MB RAM! That shiiiny FX5200 has to be better than my friend's 128MB 9700 Pro"

Intel Video hardware is just nice...

And if they enter the gaming video market, I can assure you that my next videboard will be an Intel one.

Intel drivers for Linux Just Work(TM). I installed Ubuntu 6.10 on my Acer notebook, with a i915g video adapter, and everything worked without any extra effort. And I'm even able to use Beryl/Compiz as my default window manager, without any stability issues.

Both nVidia and ATI should learn from Intel.

Re:Intel Video hardware is just nice...

"Intel drivers for Linux Just Work(TM). I installed Ubuntu 6.10 on my Acer notebook, with a i915g video adapter, and everything worked without any extra effort. And I'm even able to use Beryl/Compiz as my default window manager, without any stability issues."

This is because Intel's graphics chipsets are crippled and don't implement any of the features covered by other companies' patents which force ATI and NVidia to go closed-source.

You seem to forget that ATI had fully open-source drivers until they were forced to "go closed" due to licensing another company's IP for their chipsets. In that particular case, the first incident was S3 Texture Compression, a feature essentially required by all modern games, and apparently with patent licensing agreements that prohibit closed-source drivers. For a few months, S3TC was why Unreal Tournament 2003 (or was it 2k4?) only ran on NVidia cards under Linux - it wasn't until ATI released binary drivers that supported S3TC that UT2k3 would run on ATI cards under Linux.

The end result is that ultimately, the choice will not be Intel's as to whether to go open-source or not for full functionality, just as ATI had no choice but to "go closed" or simply leave certain critical features disabled/unsupported under Linux.

Re:Intel Video hardware is just nice...

This is because Intel's graphics chipsets are crippled and don't implement any of the features covered by other companies' patents which force ATI and NVidia to go closed-source.

And I should care about that why?

Intel cards are not bleeding edge. However, if all you want is a reasonably powerful, 3D supporting card for your open source desktop, then they are perfect. I don't require a huge framerate in $LATEST_GAME, because I don't play it. If I did, then an Intel card would obviously not be for me.

My intel-based graphics work perfectly, and don't give a moments trouble. I can run 3D applications if I want, and a flashy eye-candy-full desktop too. I previously had an nVidia card, and it was nothing but a fight - is my card supported with this release of the driver? Is it crashing my computer? Is it going to compile with the latest kernel?

Nowadays, I do nothing but apt-get upgrade to keep my graphics in order and I am a lot happier for it.

My money is on NVidia

Intel is years behind in this market. And they tried this once before, with dismal results: http://news.com.com/Intel+retreats+from+graphics+c hips/2100-1001_3-230019.html [com.com]

If anything the graphics market has gotten even more specialized since then. I don't know why they think they can succeed this time.

Re:My money is on NVidia

But most people don't buy the top end. There's still a lot of computers being sold with Intel graphics chipsets, right on the motherboard, because most people could care less about which graphics card they have. They'd rather be playing games on their big TV with their console. As long as they can play Tetris variation #349 and freecell, they don't really care which graphics card they have.

Re:My money is on NVidia

Yes, could care less is correct, because it's short for the phrase:
I suppose I could care less, but I'm not sure how.

I agree with you, and concede the point.*

*Here "I agree with you, and concede the point" is actually short for the phrase "I could agree with you, and concede the point, but I consider using words which mean the opposite of what you are trying to say in normal conversation to be extremely silly.".

Re:My money is on NVidia

I don't know why they think they can succeed this time.

Remember when AMD made Intel clones down to the very chip architecture and it didn't matter which manifacturer you bought from?

Remember how AMD K5 sucked and people started leaning towards Intels? And then Pentium 4 happened, and AMD's new architecture was much superior? And then Core turned things on their head again?

Things change. I don't think we're using 3DFX cards anymore either too. They used to be ahead of everyone.

Intel is the only one...

...who can compete with ATI and Nvidia.
Intel has technology, has brains, has money, has plants. They can do something "as good as" the two others. Competition is a good thing (prices falling, etc); only two main actors for videocards is a bad things.
S3 can't compete. Matrox can't compete. 3dfx can't compete (they're dead). Others can't compete. Intel is our only hope.

Re:Intel is the only one...

Well, SONICblue (formerly S3 / Diamond) are essentially dead as well(chapter 11, most product lines sold off), but Matrox still survive with a 3-5% share of the market, and they're doing fairly well in niche markets - scientific, medical, military and financial. As for 3dfx, their assets (intellectual and staff) where purchased by NVIDIA; so any innovation from their prime years is probably still alive and well (to a degree).

If they really do this, I am sold

If Intel can make a graphics card that is better than my current GeForce FX 5700LE in all areas (including shader performance) I am sold.
Especially if they have open source Linux drivers for the thing :)

Re:If they really do this, I am sold

If I wanted to run binary kernel modules I would just buy a 6xxx series NVIDIA and be done with it.
I specifically said "Open Source" :)

I wonder if this will change onboard graphics...

Will Intel be clever enough and innovative enough to have a "GPU" socket on such motherboards? Maybe even GPU-specific memory sockets rather than shared memory?

One can always hope.

Re:I wonder if this will change onboard graphics..

That socket is usually called a "PCIe slot" these days. If you use a socket instead of just integrating the graphics chip into one that is onboard anyway, you might as well use the established solution.
Another interesting approach (albeit not for high end machines and somewhat OT here) is AMD's plan to integrate the GPU with the CPU. That way, you might have some more choice than with a soldered in chip, and GPU cooling could profit from the availability of decent CPU coolers.

Intel can interface with theircpus

Intel has a chance. Intel has the experience with cpu's. Intel can also interface with their new processors. I think Intel could atleast put up a good fight. Why do you think Amd bought ati? They know that intel can do gpus and really good ones if they tried and the only way amd would be able to compete would be buying a gpu maker wich they did.

I'll believe it when I see it

I've never met an Intel graphics solution that could play anything more intense than Solitaire. Is the G965 any good?

I just upgraded my sister's mobo + CPU. It had embedded graphics, so I figured it would be comparable to her 2 year old nVidia AGP card. Nope. I had to buy a new PCIe nVidia card to handle Sims 2.

On a side note: Has anyone noticed that the extremely popular family-friendly 3D games are the worst performers? Sims 2 and RCT3 both take eons to load - much slower than Q4 or HL2.

Real-time raytracing from Intel ?

I've been waiting for years for such kickass videocards. I've seen running protoypes in labs/universities; quite impressive videos. After a few years, now, the technology should be ready for the big market ? Pixar-like technology at home !
Real-time raytracing needs a lot of power; so, a multicore videocard is a great idea ! With raytracing, each core can compute one part of each picture. Better than SLI.
Using their knowledges, Intel can build a very fast multicore real-time raytracing videocard. It will be "something different", and it will compete with ATI and Nvidia in a new innovative way...

Thanks but no thanks

Until this new hardware will let me display fractional polygons I'm sticking to my continuous graphics board.

But will they do DVI?

But will they include DVI? Better yet, dual DVI for those who run either dual monitors or really large monitors which require dual link?

Re:But will they do DVI?

But will they include DVI? Better yet, dual DVI for those who run either dual monitors or really large monitors which require dual link?

No, in fact they aren't even going to include DSUB outputs. They are going to use modulated RF outputs like you got on the ATARI ST and AMIGA. They will be capable of displaying NTSC resolutions at anything up to 60Hz refresh rate.

What the fuck do you think?

Welcome back, Intel

Intel's previous foray into the Discrete Graphics Market was the Intel i740. I got one, agreeing with PC salesman "Hey, you can't go wrong with Intel can you?" It was quite a decent chip for its time, and the driver was very stable. I don't ever recall graphics hanging once! It was disappointing when Intel bailed out of the 3D market, but to their credit they continued to update the drivers whenever a new version of DirectX rolled out.

Intel have already made a return of sorts to 3D with their Media Accelerator 9XX series chips you'll find in many Intel laptops. It's funny, because you'd expect an embedded chipset to be lame; lowest common denominator, shared RAM and akk. But this lappie has it and the graphics scream. It's faster than my nVidia 5700 which is two years old. The driver is stable too; never crashed. If they can do this with an embedded chipset 3d, imagine what they can do when they really put their mind to it?

nVidia and ATI have the market to themselves these days. nVidia has got pretty lax regarding driver stability for these days, and it's damned near impossible to get support out of them. They've fobbed off support to OEMs, who slap electronics onto cards and are in no position to help with driver problems. That's the sort of thing that happens when a company dominates a market.

If Intel can come out with some high performance electronics and stable drivers, well, Welcome back, Intel! I for one welcome you as my new Overlord!

Re:Question about Intel Media Accelerator 9XX

As far as I know, the GMA 9xx [wikipedia.org] series is a couple generations behind, performance wise. It should play quake3 and UT2k4 just fine, but it seems to have trouble with the Doom 3 engine, and I suspect the new UT engine will also be unplayable. On the windows side, it doesn't work with halflife2 either. Seems the most likely kind of game to fail is a new FPS. But I hear aero and Xgl/AIGLX work fine, so you may be satisfied with the current Intel offerings. The wikipedia page seems like a good place to start researching if you're still interested.

Driver Open Sourcing

Has anyone considered that the reason ATI/NVidia won't open source their drivers/firmware is because there are blatant copyright and patent violations in their code? I'm not saying there are violations, but if there are, then I would expect each to violently defend against anyone seeing their source code. To date, the best argument heard is that access to the code would provide their competitors an unfair advantage into their optimization techniques, which most of us recognize to be hog wash. At worst [zdnet.com], they wrap it up in "we have licensed proprietary algorithms" declarations and refuse to give the community a chance to work around those algorithms.

There is only one way forward. NVidia should fund the effort to rewrite their firmware/drivers, providing only the hardware register descriptions and nuances. I'm quite sure others have asked NVidia to do this already, but Intel moving forward with this plan should force the other's hand. I'm surprised that Microsoft hasn't chimed in here because for every open specification we get in the OSS world, they also get. That's where all those Microsoft drivers come from. And only on occasion is a vendor-supplied driver better that the Microsoft one. Open sourcing any drivers also helps Microsoft support more hardware out of the box, without a multitude of licensing agreements and royalty schemes.

And of course, NVidia (and now ATI) have been adding more treasure to their war chests with the PCIe motherboards. I just bought a new motherboard and it's extremely hard to find a new board with PCI-Express that doesn't have an nForce or ATI chipset.

It's going to be a tough game for Intel because it's not just graphics drivers. AMD could play into this game if they took a decisive maneuver with their GPU integration into the CPU. Remember that AMD now owns ATI.

Industry Benefit

I believe in competition being good, but I'm not sure it's all about just competition. This likely could be the move to save PC Gaming as a whole. Technology-wise PC's will always have superiority over consoles, but there are rare arguments to the economics of top-end gaming PC's against consoles. Microsoft and Sony take huge losses to push their hardware, and slowly but surely it does pay off - Gears of War on the Xbox 360 has sold 3 million copies in just a hair over 60 days. Name one PC title that is using every bleeding-edge technology and has sold that many copies that fast. You won't find it, because the segment of people who will pay between $2500 and $5000 for a PC to play those kinds of games (Crysis, Oblivion) is so small you can't hope to sell that many copies. Intel knows how to make computer chips quickly, and on the cheap. That is what I feel they are bringing to this contest. I think Intel believes they can make a graphics platform just as powerful or more powerful than Nvidia/ATI and can do it for less cost. That is how you generate competition not just in the graphics sector, but you make PC's more competitive against the consoles. The PC has endless amounts of good games to sell, the problem is there aren't cheap PCs that will play them with the slickness that consoles provide. Ultimately this move should make the top-end PC cheaper, which is good for everyone because the inherent competition will force Nvidia/ATI to lower prices. I like this move. Go Intel!

compete against a decade of experience

Even Intel doesnt get it perfect in the fist chips.
Another considerationis they may have to emulate someone elses API. Too much software out there to have a new one.

The Future of The Linux Desktop

The Future of the Linux Desktop is finally safe. Intel Graphics is so far the closest thing the world has seen to a successful open graphics project. Intel has hired some of the best minds in the Xorg project- such as Keith Packard [wikipedia.org] and Eric Anholt [anholt.net]- and has put out great free drivers for some time now. Sure the GMA 9xx series is not the best for games, but it can run a 3D accelerated desktop with the best of them.

If nothing else the excitement in and around the Linux community over these OpenGL possibilities on the desktop has brought forth a need for better drivers and acceleration. Nvidia has the most feature complete drivers on the Linux desktop, but they are not free in the licensed sense and therefore have to be installed by the user (bad in many ways). Ati's official drivers are just as closed with worse performance and features. For ATI cards there is a reverse engineered free driver that has more features than the official drivers but still lacks the performance of an official driver. Its a great effort and by far one of the best things so far, but it does not work with the newest Ati cards- meaning that Linux is always one step behind. This leaves a vacuum in the market for a discrete card maker to put out hardware that is nearly feature complete with open drivers before or on the day it's released to the public.

Intel so far looks to be that company, and now should be considered the best hardware friend so far to the future of the Linux desktop. Give credit where credit is due and buy their stuff and mail them and tell them you did. This is the best shot so far....

Re:Predictable...

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

Try reinstalling the drivers.

Re:Discrete?

I am guessing in this context "discrete" means seperate from the motherboard.

Re:Discrete?

The hint's in the word 'continuous'; it wasn't a discrete/discreet confusion at all. Look up the word 'discrete', you might feel the need to be discreet about your stupidity yourself.