Interesting Inquirer article on Intel and Gaming

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35660

Something to think about. It seems a little doomsday-ish, but raises some very valid points about Intel burning bridges.

David

 

HA HA HA!!!! Take that Intel!!!

 

It doesn't seem a little doomsday-ish but a little Inquirer-ish to me.
Is that the same Inquirer claiming that DirectX 10 is available for Windows XP.

Otherwise, I know that some people are more than happy reading such articles.

Anyway. Thank you that you regularly inform us about the Inquirer's nice stories.

 

They retracted the DX10 article, if you'd have looked further on in that thread. They're not completely without mores. But it's not a bad analysis of Intel's position in the industry, that they've created a lot of bad blood between them and other companies because of their heavy-handed tactics, such as the Centrino branding and such.

 

Well you only have to look at these boards to find people who hate Intel for their GMA range. My belief is if you are going to spend £££s on a PC/laptop, do some research before you buy, and don't get sucked in by marketing crap. The GMA, as stated in the Inq's article is "a low-cost, low-power way to get a livable amount of pixels onto your LCD. Do not expect FEAR to run a zillion FPS, or for Crysis to even run for that matter." If you buy a GMA then moan you can't play Quake 4, tough.

That said, Nvidia and ATI have taken big strides in the onboard graphics department, whilst Intel are being left behind. The X3000 on paper looks good, but can Intel get efficient drivers out to make sure that people can utilise its power. At the moment that has not happened.

Intel recently reached a deal though with Imagination Technologies, home of PowerVR, for bringing their products to Intel platforms in the future. Hopefully some good will come out of that, as Imagination, although not figuring on the desktop scene for some time, are a big player in the mobile market.

 

"The problem is the older games are what people are running."

That's it, the problem with intel is that people are running older games. You know all those sales of new games? They don't exist because people are buying old games! But wait, their are no sales of old games? SHUTUP! Because the INQ says their are!

"If there is one take-home message from the above, it is that that graphics do matter, and matter big."

But INQ, I thought you said people were buying old games...?

"How bad is it? AMD set up four machines, two desktops and two laptops. All were off-the-shelf major brand name machines purchased at a retailer. One was an AMD X2 4600+ on an NV 6150 with 2G of memory. The Intel box was a Core 2 Name E6300 with a G965 (rev C2 if you care) and 2G of ram. For cost, the Intel box at retail was $100 or so more."

Amd 4600+ $239: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103545

2 gigs ddr1 ram $239: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820231032

6150 mobo $74: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131570

total: 554.

e6300: $183.50: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115005

2 gigs ddr2 ram $234.99: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820231087

g965 mobo $125.99: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131043

Total: 544.48

This is OBVIOUSLY an Intel bashing Inq post.

BTW, how exactly are they burning bridges by adding their on integrated hardware? Does AMD burn bridges by adding their own integrated hardware...

No I get it, AMD can do no wrong to the INQ.... Oh, and somehow the ATI thing is Intels fault?

Stop linking to the INQ!

 

The Inquirer has three important traits:
- They suck badly at speculation. Whenever they write an article that includes words like "We think", or "We'd expect that", or "It'd make sense for <insert company here> to do this", you can safely assume it's nonsense and will be proven wrong.

-They suck at remembering earlier stories. (They quite often contradict themselves, even presenting "news" that they themselves said 6 months ago weren't true. (For example the DX10 story. Ages ago Microsoft announced that DX9.0L was a a Longhorn port of DX9. The Inquirer forgets, reads about DX9.0L and assumes it's a XP port of DX10.
Morons.

But they have one other important trait.
They're **** good at digging up stories and rumours. They don't always get the details right (because they start speculating, see #1, or because they just don't understand the technology), but they're **** good at finding leaks and getting information out of industry insiders, and those stories are usually worth reading, at least if you remember to skip the passages where they start speculating, analysing or otherwise get subjective.

This is OBVIOUSLY an Inq bashing Intel fanboy post.
Or wait, maybe they just found those prices at a different retailer? Maybe the price isn't even important to the point they're making? And maybe they're just reporting from an event done by AMD?

Not by adding their own integrated hardware. By *requiring* it.

It's fairly simple. You can't make a Centrino notebook using ATI or NVidia integrated graphics or motherboard. It's impossible. Intel won't let you do it.
That means such a beast will seem "inferior" because it can't get Intel's stamp of approval. If people have a choice between a notebook with a Centrino sticker, and one without, 98% of all consumers will take the Centrino one.

Intel is keeping out competition in the areas of IGP and motherboards, by piggybacking the entire market onto their CPU's. They have good CPU's, but to make a popular notebook using that CPU, you have to buy their motherboard and their IGP as well. Otherwise, it'll look like cheap budget crap.

Moreover, Intel has long had a history of trying to drive 3rd party motherboards out of the market. That's why there were no one to take over when they recently had a chipset shortage. They'd killed off all competitors in the market, so whoops, when they had a shortage, it just wasn't possible to get a motherboard for their CPU's.

Intel is burning bridges, not by adding their own integrated hardware, but, quite simply, by making life tough for companies trying to deliver hardware that works with Intel's.

 

If it's from a AMD event, it doesn't speak much for their polarity between the two sides.

You can't have a centino notebook using ati or nvidia integrated graphics? Are you sure you mean using another motherboard, because my core 2 duo laptop with x1800 would like a word with you.

What makes you think I'm an intel fanboy btw...

I only get what is the best. If they were stupidly bashing AMD for no reason I'd defend them too...

 

I don't know if you're an Intel fanboy. I just figured I'd echo your kneejerk reaction.

The article did say that AMD set up those four machines, so yes, sounds like it's from an AMD event of some sort.

if your x1800 is an integrated chip, I'm impressed. Otherwise, I stand by what I said.
The point is that 3rd party integrated GPU's basically are impossible to sell on those 70% of the market that Intel controls. Sure, you can stick a discrete GPU on top of it, but that doesn't really help AMD or ATI sell their integrated solutions, and so it doesn't really provide any competition for Intel's GMA.

So they're not "stupidly bashing Intel for no reason". They're bashing Intel because the information they have makes Intel look bad. That's as good a reason as you can get, isn't it? It's hard to bash anyone based on anything other than the information you have.

 

Oh integrated. I should read better.

Sorry, I read fast, I usually scim thru... However, if you're buying a gaming quality integrated chip... HUH? It's a bit wrong... You really aren't gonna game in the first place on an integrated chip, if you're buying an integrated chip you should buy it for business...

People are MAD about this? People are buying integrated chips for gaming and then wonder why they can't play games? Pretty soon these same people are gonna spill coffee on themselves and sue mcdonalds..

 

Well, for light gaming, something like a GF6150 does pretty well. It's only on Intel integrated GPU's that you're out of luck.

Which people do you mean? Companies like Via, SIS, NVidia, ATI and a few others are mad about this policy completely preventing them from competing on the Intel notebook market, yes.
And some consumers are mad about being unable to buy a *good* integrated GPU on their notebook. Some people don't want maximum performance, but they do want something that, well, works.
I'd quite like a notebook with 6150-like performance and features. Unfortunately, that's not possible unless I stick with an AMD-based system which means no Core 2 goodness.

 

I could understand the companies being mad, but consumers being mad is a self defeating purpose. Your mad because you can't get a integrated gpu (when your entire point isn't gaming) so you can play quake 3 or something?

BTW, speaking of integrated, why do we even care?

The last good integrated gpus were around 2001, I have one in my Athlon 1800+. A integrated geforce 3 when geforce 4s the top dog?

Why care which one is integrated? Today's integrated cards are all garbage. Unless they start integrating a x1950 when the r600 launches (only way to get back up to where it was in 2001), yes, they are all garbage

 

Because my point might be *more* than gaming. Maybe I'd like a system that could run oldish, less demanding games, while consuming as little power as possible. If I want a low-power system, discrete GPU's are pretty much out of the picture. Now, *if* I had a choice, I could get a 6150 or similar, something that supports decent graphics features (SM3.0), and which performs... well, good enough for what I'd use the notebook for.
Instead, I have to settle with a crippled and obsolete GMA950, for no reason other than that Intel doesn't like competition and abuses their dominance to keep it out.

No, personally I'd be more interested in an integrated Geforce 6/7. And I think that counts as a "good integrated GPU".
It supports SM3.0, it performs acceptably (compared to a discrete low-end GF6/7.)
It does what I need (for my notebook. I've got a nice desktop system for *serious* gaming)
The GMA950 does *not* do what I need.
And if possible, I'd rather avoid the extra power consumption of a discrete GPU.

Not everyone wants a 16-pound DTR for their notebook, with quad-SLI and a 58" screen.

But at the same time, some people don't want the other extreme either, going with a GMA950. Not when a better compromise can be made, by using a *good* integrated chip, which would give the advantages of a small, cheap, integrated GPU, without the disadvantages of the 950.

Anyway, you were the one who started talking about people being mad, as far as I know. I'm just saying that Intel has done everything they could to prevent competing IGP's from entering the market, and that they've burned a lot of bridges doing so. Oh, and that I'd like a bit more choice than Intel is willing to give me when buying a notebook.

 

.......

A near top of the line intergrated gpu was far better then a crap geforce 6 gpu! Back then they GAVE you near top of the line. Why people like you ENJOY second rate, I'll never know.

I guess it's people like you who say this kinda stuff that has convined companies that they don't need to package in the good stuff :-\

What I'm specifically saying is, you go around saying, 'Not everyone needs 'so and so' a big screen tv, big gaming system, etc. I would definately say that the reason you gotta buy all this stuff sepeprately is because of attitudes like this.

You don't hafta want the newest, best systems, but saying you don't need a free near top of the line gpu only convinces companies to get rid of them. If enough people got together and told companies that they didn't 'need' keys with their keyboard, you'd hafta buy each key for each keyboard. Be careful what you wish for...



http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=189&card2=411

It's more like a 5200 chief.

 

Intel isn't exactly smart. I don't think it would be so hard for Intel to create decent GPUs, but it seems they won't have much more than a bunch of monkeys to create decent GPUs for their laptop motherboards.

 

Now then, after all my points have been said...

I agree with you that what intel is doing is wrong. All I'm saying is, if your getting a current integrated laptop for gaming, you are out of your mind.

 

Or you're on a budget.

Or you're using a 12" and are on a budget.

When I went notebook hunting, I had a budget of $1600, and by most people's standards, considering I was replacing a 6600GT equipped desktop, is not much for a gaming laptop at all.

I was lucky to find the deal that I got, because other than what I did get, I was screwed. For the same price range, my only other dual-core options were integrated. The X2 had only just come out, and the only model available in my price range was the Compaq v3000. Other than that, I could have had a look at the slew of Intel based notebooks going for my price range. Had I purchased one of them, I would be relegated to console gaming. And that would have been a sad day.

My girlfriend (through my incessant bugging) is interested in purchasing a budget ($1000) notebook to play CS:S with me. As it looks, the Intel X3000 seems not powerful enough to run CS:S at near native resolution, like the GMA950. That means having to go the AMD way, where for $1000 she can get a machine with an X1150, which is known to play it acceptably.

So, people are not out of their mind for choosing integrated for gaming, their options/preferences are just limited.

 

Intel doesn't want you to have choice. They want you to do everything THERE WAY.

 

>_< Once again, out of your mind IMO (On a budget)... Could get a combo desktop with good videocard and notebook with integrated video...

But if you wanna go that route, more power to ya. It's your choice. If it's better for ya, it's it better to travel with games, then no one should tell ya otherwise. And hell, if your laptop laptop doesn't have much heat, more power to IT. But yeah, on a budget, there are other options

All I'm saying is, if you want to play, there are cheaper ways to play. Cheaper, better. They may not be portable, but... If you're on a budget what can you do? But hey, if your reason was you wanted a laptop, then good for you, you got a good one, but if you're reason was strictly gaming...

Always gotta edit to clarify myself

 

I can only say i wont get any integrated gpu over 14". Over 14", integrated gpu sux, whether it's intel or amd or nvidia.

 

All through that post, I had no idea what you were talking about. My point was that integrated is ALL SOME PEOPLE CAN AFFORD. There are no cheaper alternatives. (Besides playing board games) I could only afford ONE computer, like many other people. I have to travel ninety minutes to and ninety minutes from university each day, so a laptop was really my only option. And I had to sell my desktop to be able to afford this. Some people aren't made of money. I couldn't afford to have the best of both worlds. Integrated was almost my only option (praise be to Dell for making it not so).

 

Hum. Are prices in Aus different? Because you can certainly get a good gaming desktop and a laptop as well for the price you paid in America (Yes, converted to pounds).

If they are, then I apologize, I guess you had no choice.

 

Yes, both notebook and desktop prices here are inflated.

Case in point:

dell.com ---> Inspiron E1505 base model = $719US, ~$913AU
dell.com.au ---> Inspiron 6400 (identical model) = $1289AU, ~$988US

 

Sorry to hear that

 

It's a shame that Intel is putting the roadblocks on better IGPs getting a shot at being paired with their CPUs. It would be nice to have the go 6150 or x1150 as an added option.

Keep in mind that not everybody is into heavy gaming that requires a dedicated GPU. Some need the extra battery life that a dedicated GPU will take, but still need some 3D power for other applications. For those who only intend to play 2D or older games, a decent IGP is sufficient. And the capabilities of some of the IGPs is actually fairly impressive. Not to mention the price of "gaming" systems can be rather prohibitive to those on a budget.

 

The 6150 beat the 965 well there's a surprise. Try telling me something I don't already know!

 

Perhaps because I'm *looking* for second rate. For one thing, I have a perfectly good desktop system for gaming. What I'd like to be able to do on my notebook is primarily work. Among other things, work on games development, which means I'd quite like support for SM3.0 or 4.0. It also means I'd like a GPU with a driver that at least runs games without bugs.
Once that is achieved, I don't really care about performance. It could run at 3 FPS in Doom 3 as far as I'm concerned, as long as it will run.

No, I've got an alternate theory. It could be that today, the "good stuff" costs what, 2-3 times as much, takes huge amounts of die space, and consumes insane amounts of power. All three are no-go's on something integrated on the motherboard.

Uh, free? Integrating a GPU on the mobo is *not* free. Especially not if they do it with a high-end GPU.

I am careful. I wish for a decent, well-supported integrated GPU with a good featureset and *low* power consumption.

That is not the same as your desire for integrated 7950 SLI. I don't *want* that. Not because I want "second rate", but because I simply judge it by some different criteria.

[/quote]
Good enough for me. It supports SM3.0 and it runs like a 5200? I'd take it.

No, not out of my mind. Try to understand that some people have different priorities than you, please. It seems a bit arrogant to say people are out of their minds just because they don't want the same as you.
Thank you.

I don't *want* a "combo desktop with good videocard and notebook with integrated video". At least not if the integrated video is Intel.
I do want that combo if I could get NVidia or ATI integrated video. That's my entire point. Because of that combo I don't *need* a 130000 score in 3dMark on my notebook, I just want an IGP on my notebook that 1) can run games (however badly they perform, it has to support the needed features), 2) has a driver that just works, that is, ATI- or NVidia-like quality, and 3) consumes as little power as possible.

 

>_< You don't want a integrated video card like they did in 2001, guess what man, integrated cards tend not to affect battery as much as a regular card!

"No, I've got an alternate theory. It could be that today, the "good stuff" costs what, 2-3 times as much, takes huge amounts of die space, and consumes insane amounts of power. All three are no-go's on something integrated on the motherboard."

I'm guessing then in a few years you'll still be stuck on using geforce 6150's, since the newer cards could never be run...

Or maybe you'll just be surprised? Since the real power usage comes from adding their own memory, and clock speeds, etc?

 

But this is getting out of hand. If it's your wish to get second hand, then no one should stop you, it's your choice. Your choice is what dictates your life, let no one make that choice for you. And if you are happy with your choice, then we should choose to be happy for you.

But at the same time, it is our choice to say what is on our mind

 

The thing about the AMD benchmarks is that they didn't post what drivers they used. Early benchmarks that showed the GMA X3000 performing worse than the GMA 950 were using 14.21.1 drivers which didn't support anything in hardware, which meant the GMA 950 had the advantage of hardware PS2.0. It's only in the latest 14.25 drivers that hardware PS2.0 support was added. T&L and VS are still done in software so currently the GMA X3000 is running like a GMA 950 or even worse since the GMA 950 has probably been optimized to the extent that Intel does any optimization.

I haven't seen many good Windows benchmarks but there have been Linux benchmarks of the GMA 3000 (overclocked GMA 950) and the GMA X3000.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=571&num=1

Phoronix reviewed the GMA 3000 on the Q965 corporate platform and it actually gives the X300SE a run for it's money, beating it quite decisively in UT2003 in fact. Cosidering the GMA 3000 offloads T&L and VS to the CPU and their system had an old 820D Smithfield, not even a Presler, this is pretty good.

http://deadmoo.com/articles/2006/09/28/intels-new-onboard-video-benchmarked

The GMA X3000 has also been reviewed under Linux and running UT2004 actually outperforms the X550 and is within striking distance of the 7300GS.

Obviously Linux adds another variable, but given that Intel's Linux drivers are very underdeveloped right now for these new IGPs that results definitely show that the GMA X3000 and even the lowly GMA 3000 do have a lot of potential. If only Intel gets around to releasing full Windows drivers for them.

 

I'll make a bit of an apology to everyone. I was a bit agressive in this topic. I've been under a bit of stress the past couple of days.

 

Really? It totally went unnoticed.

 

I kinda gave a half apology didn't I?

I'm sorry. I've had alot on my mind lately.

 

We appreciate the apology, but please try and see things from other peoples' perspectives.

The days of an integratable GeForce 3 are over. Look at the cooling a GF3 required. Now look at the cooling even a mid-end GeForce 7600GT requires. It's not happening.

Die shrinks and improved manufacturing technology will continue to improve the quality of IGPs that come out, but they're never going to be able to catch up to dedicated parts again.

And the reality is that IGPs are for people either on a budget or who simply don't need a dedicated part sucking battery life. People don't NEED "great," they need "acceptable," and that's the big compromise laptop users have to make.

A good IGP is fine for some mild gaming on older games, or popping on World of Warcraft now and again. It doesn't need to be running at native, it just needs to run playably.

 

No harm done. I'm glad you caught yourself before it went too far. Thank you.

In the future though, please try to keep personal issues out of the forums. We like this to be a happy place .