Intel to possibly use AMD GPU tech to challenge Nvidia
19 replies, posted
Apple possibly involved too
This is so bizarre im expecting someone to prove this wrong in this thread
[url]http://www.pcworld.com/article/3147846/computers/intel-may-use-amd-gpus-to-challenge-nvidias-rising-power.html[/url]
[QUOTE] To my understanding, Intel has a team of about ~1,000 engineers working on their forward-looking iGPU technology,” Bennett told PCWorld. “Basically, that work will be scrapped and that team and their work will be replaced with AMD teams and technology going forward. There are also Apple implications here as well, and this deal is good for Apple assuredly. [/QUOTE]
2016 is one heck of a year
This could end up great for AMD, it could also be a very anti-competitive move by Intel if they start to buy out AMD properties.
[editline]7th December 2016[/editline]
I'm cautiously excited, I think it would be great to have a solid competitor against NVIDIA. They've been getting away with too much recently and AMD, though has made improvements, still lacks in the high end graphics chip market share.
Funny since Intel and NVIDIA together are the most popular and efficient builds
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;51496159]Funny since Intel and NVIDIA together are the most popular and efficient builds[/QUOTE]
Well, popular at any rate.
I'm sure AMD is cheaper than what Nvidia would want and AMD could use the money. So despite the general attitude here it makes sense.
Nvidia has been pushing into Intel's territory with server GPUs as a replacement for traditional CPUs, so they aren't exactly getting along right now.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51496221]Well, popular at any rate.[/QUOTE]
but... AMD CPU's are pretty fucking terrible, and the gtx 1080 is an actual monster*
*currently anyways
[QUOTE=J!NX;51496346]but... AMD CPU's are pretty fucking terrible, and the gtx 1080 is an actual monster*
*currently anyways[/QUOTE]
It becomes blurrier with different use-cases and different budgets. It's not always the smartest choice to go Intel or Nvidia 100% of the time. Solid research is still required to make educated choices. For me, Nvidia's high end always outperformed AMD, but in the price brackets I (and indeed most people) was shopping at it was usually smarter to go AMD for my GPUs. It was more efficient to go AMD in these cases.
[editline]8th December 2016[/editline]
Actually though if you mean energy efficiency I think that may be true.
[QUOTE=J!NX;51496346]but... AMD CPU's are pretty fucking terrible, and the gtx 1080 is an actual monster*
*currently anyways[/QUOTE]
amd hasn't released a new flagship cpu in like 3 years though. intel has launched like 6 new generations of hardware since then. and as for graphics cards, amd's flagship card may only have half the performance of a 1080, but it's a third the price so what can you expect
[editline]8th December 2016[/editline]
I've always liked AMD processors because you could stick with the same motherboard for years at a time so every upgrade was $250 instead of $380
plus until they stopped releasing new flagship processors they were always the better choice at a given price point
I only wished intel kept the atoms and got amd to make a gpu like tegra. I have a single board computer that can run a decent amount of games, but it needs that extra gpu power to run some of the newer more demanding games.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51496382]It becomes blurrier with different use-cases and different budgets. It's not always the smartest choice to go Intel or Nvidia 100% of the time. Solid research is still required to make educated choices. For me, Nvidia's high end always outperformed AMD, but in the price brackets I (and indeed most people) was shopping at it was usually smarter to go AMD for my GPUs. It was more efficient to go AMD in these cases.
[editline]8th December 2016[/editline]
Actually though if you mean energy efficiency I think that may be true.[/QUOTE]
but we aren't talking cost, energy, or anything like that
Nvidia's gpu's are just straight up more effective, so are Intel's CPU's.
if we're talking about BUDGETING, then obviously when paying less you go with the option built around that. But that's not what intel/nvidia is about.
[QUOTE=butre;51496434]amd hasn't released a new flagship cpu in like 3 years though. intel has launched like 6 new generations of hardware since then[/QUOTE]
Well then they should start releasing CPU's that can compete with intel. Until then, I don't see the relevence? If intel's cpu's are better then they're just better. If AMD releases a GPU that is better than what Intel has right now then cool, that's the better choice.
If generic nameless company Computech starts suddenly making intel-killing desktop gpu's that excell for gaming then that'll be the better choice. Etcetc. it's just that at the moment, for effectiveness, Intel is better at being a CPU
[editline]8th December 2016[/editline]
All I know is, I want to see someone step in and fuck Nvidia up bad with something both cheap and wicked fast
[QUOTE=J!NX;51496445]but we aren't talking cost, energy, or anything like that
Nvidia's gpu's are just straight up more effective, so are Intel's CPU's.
if we're talking about BUDGETING, then obviously when paying less you go with the option built around that. But that's not what intel/nvidia is about.
Well then maybe they should start releasing CPU's that can compete with intel. Until then, I don't see the relevence? If intel's cpu's are better then they're just better. If AMD releases a GPU that is better than what Intel has right now then cool, that's the better choice.[/QUOTE]
it's still unfair to compare 3 year old hardware to a brand new processor, regardless of whether or not the 3 year old hardware is the newest they've got.
they've got a new processor supposed to come out next year that should be able to compete with intel if you believe the sales reps
[QUOTE=butre;51496464]it's still unfair to compare 3 year old hardware to a brand new processor, regardless of whether or not the 3 year old hardware is the newest they've got.
they've got a new processor supposed to come out next year that should be able to compete with intel if you believe the sales reps[/QUOTE]
Hopefully they force Intel into a corner. I feel like CPU's aren't improving fast enough, and I want AMD to scare them into making something new, by releasing something much better than what they have.
[QUOTE=J!NX;51496466]Hopefully they force Intel into a corner. I feel like CPU's aren't improving fast enough, and I want AMD to scare them into making something new, by releasing something much better than what they have.[/QUOTE]
preliminary benchmarks exceed broadwell-e at a given clockspeed but who knows what'll happen between prototype and production or if intel has something better around the corner
article poses an interesting premise but I'll take it with a grain of salt. In some ways it does make sense, Intel probably seems Nvidia as a far more immediate threat than a resurgent AMD and there is no way AMD could afford to pass on such an offer if it were true. Nvidia is making serious inroads to AI and machine learning that intel is missing the boat on, and they may want to try and shore up on that by investing in GPU tech.
In practical terms the onboard graphics being more powerful is irrelevant, Intel HD graphics are good enough for all normal uses and are quite good at that. AMD iGPUs have never proven powerful enough to be a "good enough" solution for games on their own, so im not sure what extra market intel would be hoping to capture.
On a side note, I always got the distinct impression that intel probably developed the HD graphics originally along with NVIDIA due to a patent settlement around the same time a bit before sandy bridge originally released.
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;51496159]Funny since Intel and NVIDIA together are the most popular and efficient builds[/QUOTE]
Most popular? Sure. Efficient? No, not really. You're generally better off with picking a mid range intel cpu and mid range amd card (in terms of bangs for your buck and efficiency).
[QUOTE=J!NX;51496445]but we aren't talking cost, energy, or anything like that[/QUOTE]
He said efficient, which is incredibly vague.
It was my understanding that it was just a patent deal.
Intel had licensed GPU-related patents from Nvidia before, and every time the license has ended they've gone back to AMD(/ATI when that still existed) and Nvidia, and asked which one can give a better deal on the relevant patents.
I seriously doubt we're going to see GCN in Intel chips. I imagine this is just a case of really shitty reporting.
Yeah from what I've read this is just so they have the patent licenses to make gpu cores, not necessarily using the companies tech.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.