If Sandy Bridge Could Lead to No Nvdia, Why Should I Care?

I have read a few discussions about how Sandy Bridge should make intel capable of integrated graphics and no need for a Nvdia card or anything like that. Now of course, I should make it clear that people are projecting that Sandy Bridge will only supplement a weakish Nvdia, but that by 2012 and beyond you may start seeing Intel take over.

I am NOT looking for a debate about this, but am just wondering WHY it matters? What is the bonus to getting rid of the need fo Nvdia? Will laptops get thinner and use way less power or is it just a simple matter of savings $$$?

 

Dedicated cards will always be needed for gaming and really graphics intensive stuff. However, IGPs are capable of handling everything else. This indeed greatly reduces heat production, power consumption, and price, and it allows laptops to be thinner, as well as smaller overall and quieter.

 

Umm what's the point your trying to make? The new IGP will probably also replace some low end AMD GPUs too. You probably on see nvidia mentioned because they constantly compare the new IGP to the 310m. There will still be higher end AMD and Nvidia GPUs that IGPs just won't be able to replace.

 

Thread moved to Hardware subforum.

The point of more powerful IGPs is to eliminate the need for the weak-discrete-GPU segment, which in the past lent enhanced media capabilities to laptops with these chips, at the cost of battery life. With more powerful IGPs, battery life increases as the IGP is able to handle those media tasks just as well as many weak discrete GPUs without a separate power-hungry chip and memory. Since the Intel GMA 4500M, 1080p video capabilities could be handled by the IGP, rendering weak discrete GPUs essentially useless for that purpose.

As IGPs get more powerful, the goal is for them to take over light gaming capabilities as well (already, they can, to a degree). Serious gamers and those wishing to play the latest games at higher settings, though, will still find discrete GPUs (like those made by Nvidia and AMD) essential.

So yes, more powerful IGPs could result in thinner, more inexpensive notebooks capable of more graphics-intensive tasks.

 

Thank you. That is a very honest, and accurate assessment of IGPs. In the sea of misinformation that seems to be prevalent on these boards these days, it's nice to hear someone still knows what they're talking about.

 

thanks a ton.

 

IGP's will never be as powerful due to access times to RAM and other fun stuff.

Didn't read topic, someone probably already explained it better.

 

Think about this:

Who is the largest provider of graphic solutions for desktops/laptops? Intel. 90% of people can live with integrated graphics, or suits their needs. Now gamers, professionals doing 3D, rendering that kind of stuff need more but that market is ever so small compared to the mass consumers. Although it will be interesting what Fusion will bring to the market (whenever it comes out )

Now for normal stuff, IGP is perfectly fine by me, in fact I just bought my first notebook with integrated graphics (Latitude 13). It's fine for light gaming, viewing internet content, and overall browsing. And yes, it is how you can make laptops thinner and lighter. It's how Acer made the Timeline so thin, Dell the Adamo, Latitude 13/Vostro V13 so thin and the myriad of other thin notebooks. No it won't play Crysis 1080p max AA/AS, but it wasn't designed for that.

 

I think people look at this oddly. I don't see Sandy Bridge as being anything special by having better integrated graphics. It may be a bigger jump than most generations, but the things we are trying to render, even the causal consumer, get more complex every day.

You can look back at Counter Strike, or an older web page with nothing but text to render, and say that the GMA 950 is way ahead of a ten year old dedicated graphics card, and that integrated GPUs have taken over. I see this as being no different. The software will keep improving as the hardware does, and until we find a way to get the same bandwidth between a GPUs dedicated memory, and the system memory, dedicated GPUs will have their place.

 

But you actually made a great point without realizing it. Current IGPs are way faster than 10 year old graphics cards. For instance, I have several old games that when they were first released, required high-end systems of the time to play decently, yet play great on today's IGPs.
I think the same goes for average consumers. Though software keeps improving, so does the components that power them, and I'd say that IGPs may be all that the average consumer will ever need.
If you were to look at a graph, comparing software needs versus IGP's capabilities, I would say the last couple of years would show a sharp increase in capabilities vs. needs. Intel has finally realized the value of powerful integrated graphics and finally seems committed to improving it. So far year after year, with every new platform, their integrated graphics are atleast twice as fast as the previous generation.

 

You're right, I just have a biased view as to what an average consumer is (in other news the LAN party went well today). Regardless I don't see integrated graphics cards as ever being satisfactory for my purposes. What I do really like is switchable graphics systems. I just wish more of them were manual like the M11xR1. Optimus and similar technologies seem unnecessary. Hitting function F6 before running whatever graphically intensive program I plan to use isn't a big deal.

 

I need to find the chart again, but 1 source said Intel HD graphics rival the desktop 9800PRO graphics...so current level IGP is only 7 year old graphics power...no thanks lol

 

How about, like 1 year?

I want to know why sandy bridge is scoring 16k in 3dmark06. Is it because of the sheer processing power?

 

The Core i3 Intel HD Mobile graphics I would compare to a GeForce 6600 Go which just to put that in perspective, has issues running Doom 3 at minimum settings.

That said some of the Intel HD Chips have proven better, but you can buy pretty cheap laptops with much better dedicated cards than intel offers. If you have ANY interest in gaming that doesnt involve Flash, you need something else.

Im excited about Sandy Bridges processor performance, and no interest in gaming performance.

 

You can definately say the IGP has had a greater increase that dedicated cards have enjoyed. While IGP's are almost doubling you are lucky to see 10% in the mobile market between generations of cards. I would guess this also largely contributed by the fact there really is no more power to pour into dedicated cards but you can't say the same overhead limitation exists for IGP's..........

 

I say good. I'm tired of replacing laptops with failing NVIDIA GPU's at my company. I have a pile of dead D620's here that are out of warranty, and 80% of the D630's have already had the motherboard replaced at least once.

 

I thought sandy bridge is running like 20% slower than nvidia 400 series (like 420m) -- which is no mean feat.

I know AMD llano will use AMD's 6000series actual transistors in their chips, caviot a scaled down total area.

Just FUD, but AMD laptops aught to be closer than SB ever will to kicking nvidia out of generic laptop gaming/multimedia, I'd think.

 

I'd take ion2 over Intel GMA any day of the week.

It was only the 8xxx series that were faulty, just about all the rest have been rock solid.

Because one, 3 year old series was bad, I guess the rest are horrid, and I should never buy one again.

 

Whether people like to admit it or not, the IGP's are slowly but surely catching up to discreet solutions.

ATI turned into AMD because the latter bought them, and as a result, just one company is making both cpu's and gpu's.
The IGP segment will likely be quite powerful, respectfully speaking.
AMD can easily benefit from researching how to eliminate the need for discrete gpu's and putting just as (if not more) powerful solutions directly as part of the cpu like fusion.

Nvidia (who hasn't been paired with anyone) could stand to lose big time in that game.
Why?
Well, why bother with it when just as powerful solutions could be had from AMD for a lower price tag to boot?
Less space is occupied and less heat has been produced (ergo, saving power).

I do think that IGP's still have a long way to go, but I wouldn't be surprised to notice the elimination of discrete gpu's in the future by incorporating them directly into the cpu as fusion and SB are doing right now.

I hope you are referring to the WAY old GMA's of what... oh 4 or 5 years ago?
Intel IGP's DID improve ever since then.

I do agree that ion2 is the preferred solution, but if SB can close that gap in performance (which is probably will, just like AMD will), then entry level gpu's will be history.

 

Completely agree, and in the future I see a possible acquisition of Nvidia by Intel. I think we will slowly see Intel making more components and integrating them to the point that they will essentially be building the whole computer, after all they are already making SSD's. I'm sure this will take a long time though and discrete cards will still be significant for at least the next decade or so.

 

Other than gaming, you shouldn't care.

I personally can't wait. Linux is going to be awesome on Sandy Bridge, considering how active Intel has been in getting it supported before the release date.

 

I can't imagine rendering with IGP. Nor 3 big 1080p display out with IGP. If mid range GPU can't do it, I can't imagine IGP doing it. And gaming to the max detail is out of the question.

 

Are you trying to troll or something OP?
If Nvidia GPUs lose marked shares, so does ATI. They both offer Low to High end GPUs. And IGPs from Intel will NOT replace discrete GPUs. Well not entirely. Netbooks and notebooks with low end hardware will be sufficient with IGPs, but will not replace gaming notebooks or notebooks with the chance of being used to gaming. I mean, if a person have a choice between a notebook with IGP and a notebook with discrete GPU that can handle games better, the person will choose the one with discrete GPU. I think that alone will support Nvidia and ATI against Intel IGPs

 

Well, yeah, you're right.

 

Uhm... AMD has nothing to lose here because they would be already incorporating gpu's onto the same chip with cpu.
Just as Intel is doing with SB.
Except in this case, AMD can probably find a way to ultimately put their high performance gpu into the fusion form that works with the cpu.

Nvidia cannot do that because they aren't paired with a CPU manufacturer (unless Intel or perhaps IBM buys them out), so if they lose market share, it really won't affect AMD in any capacity, especially if by the time that occurs, they switch the gpu's entirely onto the cpu's.

 

But honestly aren't we beating a dead horse? 80% of consumer notebooks ship out with integrated graphics. Sandy Bridge and more advanced IGP is only going to increase that number, though it's never going to replace the high end power users, but it will eat into that middle market where customer want higher end graphics but don't really game.

 

AMD have a lot to lose here. There are plenty of Intel + ATI GPUs configurations out there. If the notebook manufacturers choose to skip ATI GPUs and go for Sandy Bridge configurations instead, ATI will lose marked shares. Shure, AMD stand stronger than Nvidia, but that doesnt hide the fact that they will sell less discrete GPUs.
And not to mention that with Sandy Bridge with IGP will now be a direct competitor to the AMD IGPs.

And we dont know anything about high end GPUs with fusion yet. Godfrey Cheng, the director of AMD, have said time after time that Fusion will not kill GPUs.

 

I say that because the average consumer only has IGP that software is not developed to take advantage of a GPU and why PC gaming is suffering

Fusion, AMD makes money off those integrated chips and ATI develops the GFX part

 

i think this will be the direct effect of sb chips and new cpu's onward.
discrete processors will always be faster than on-chip solutions but as igp's become more powerful they could erode on the nvidia/ati marketshare by dominating the low and mid end markets which probably account for more than 90% sales.
this could force nvidia to lower their prices to be more competitive and/or (hopefully 'and') develop technologies at a faster pace to keep ahead of igp's. alternatively, it could force them to go into bankruptcy if market share shrinks too much, leading to an acquisition most probably by intel itself.
ati is in a better position since as others have mentioned, it is already paired with a cpu manufacturer. so if the discrete gpu market becomes too unprofitable they could divert their resources to igp instead and battle with intel on those grounds.
i care about this because it has the potential to shake up the gpu market. if intel is too successful in their implementation it could lead to the death of consumer discrete gpu's in a couple of years. and if you pair that with the rise of consoles and the migration of developers and publishers towards said consoles, it may finally spell the end of pc gaming as we know it. as an avid pc gamer for 20 years i really hope that day wont come.

 

To add on:

GPU/IGP Market
- Intel 52.7% (compared to 51.1%)
- Nvidia 24.9% (compared to 29.2%)
- AMD 19.8% (compared to 18.4%)
- VIA/S 3 1.5% (compared to 0.8%)
- SiS 1.1% (compared to 0.4%) (RIP)
- Matrox 0.0% (compared to 0.1%) (!)

Intel rules the market, and fails hardcore. Mediocre gaming performance per $ (IGP speaking).
@OT
Hmm if IBM buys out Nvidia. I am going to sign a blood oath of loyalty to an IBM-owned-Nvidia. That is all. Thank you.

 

Well actually I stand corrected, I meant to say integrated graphics. Think about the percentage of that Nvidia and AMD are IGP (Geforce 6050, 7050, 8100, 9200, HD3100, 3200, 4200). I would say 50-60% so really IGP dominate 80% of the market or higher.

 

I like IGP for battery life, heat, and weight.
I like Intel for Linux support.
Therefore I like Intel IGP.

 

I like your reasoning.

 

The majority of the machines I run Linux on have Intel IGPs, but the two that didn't had Nvidia GPUs, and the drivers were fine. The first was my Dell XPS M1530 with an 8600M GT, and the second was when I had Linux on my M11x, which worked fine with the GT335M.

I just took got a dead HP DV9000, and eventually concluded it was the graphics card. I completely disassembled it and checked all connections, and there was no video output through the LCD or through the VGA port. I ended up parting it out.

It times like that where I really wish all laptops had either MXM modules, or Intel IGPs. I've see ATI IGPs fail, but Intel ones have been completely reliable in my experience. I don't own any machines with Nvidia IGPs, but they also seem to be reliable.

 

I thought Nvidia IGP were affected by the defective bump material as well, lots of complaints about GeForce 7050? It has been in my experience that Intel IGP fail alot less than Nvidia or ATi. Mostly the problem with ATi was paired up with AMD processors (old S1 socket processors like the Turion X2 Ultras run very very hot with poor cooling systems by HP).

Think of IGP as people who drive fuel efficient cars vs high end discreet graphics as people who drive supercars. IGP users usually want something: cheap, cool, quiet, good battery life while discreet video card users usually don't care about any of that.

 

I had forgotten about that Nvidia card. The only one I ever think about these days is the 9400, which seems fine.

 

It was the entire geforce 7 and 8 series that were affected.

 

The death of the HP DV9000 I just parted out was caused by a 7600!

 

The entire GeForce 7 and 8? I thought G92M cores were unaffected (8800M GTX/GTS), most complaints were G84M/G86M and only some of GeForce 7 but was it official for GeForce 7?

 

The 8800m GTX was not affected, if the GTS used the same core it should have not been effected. The G92m was fine it was the G84m/86m as you mentioned that were complete fail.

 

IGP should dominate the market. Every desktop and laptop needs a "video card" or processor now that things are integrated. Despite the large market for gaming, its a small market. Plenty of gamers who don't wish to spend the money on PC gaming, whom i do laugh at but they exist.

It of course no longer makes alot of sense to build a non integrated version of a video chip that isn't for gaming or meant to be replaced. While disadvantage to ram access times and type, general communications are benefited by being in the northbridge or cpu.

As a developer I am mad at intel for their lack of opengl support. Anyone here realize how hard it is to write opengl 3.x code and then have to rewrite it in the very unrelated 2.1 OMG lol. The performance can suck all you want, I am tired of working so hard while your being so lazy intel.

 

Does Sandy Bridge still not support OpenGL 3.0?

 

According to the wikipedia entries, which are hard to trust. It says 2.1 with DX 10.1 and the future shrink to support dx11 and unknown opengl support.

Its a little odd for a 10.1 card to not be able to support OpenGL up to say 3.3, however as in the past its also Intels commitment to writing new drivers as one of their older chipsets did gain 2.1 up from 1.5 through a late update.