By: EduardoS (no.delete@this.spam.com), December 14, 2012 7:06 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on December 14, 2012 5:33 am wrote:
> But who needs it?
The part of market wich matter for me, myself.
> Even SandyBridge (P3000) GPU 3D performance is an overkill for all, but a tiny fraction
> of users. P4000 is bigger overkill. Haswell would be horrible overkill.
> I really don't see a point in "decent" 3D performance. Either you have "good" performance,
> i.e. enough to play all, but the most demanding 3D games, or do enough of 3D to support the
> heaviest GUI stuff and don't spend chip area and power budget on anything above that.
> The 1st goal is clearly unattainable for mass market IGPs
> due to current packaging limitation (memory bandwidth).
> So, IMHO, the best for us, [desktop] customers, would be if Intel was doing the 2nd, i.e. Clarkdale level
> of 3D performance or even slightly less than Clarkdale at close to zero power cost and small area cost.
For desktop I almost agree with you, the part I disagree is because I prefer no iGPU at all since I will use a dedicated chip, for corporate desktops I still not sure if the best place for the graphics logic is next to the CPU, but for mobile a dedicated chip isn't all that good (power, cost for a not so impressive performance) so a good iGPU is welcome.
AMD iGPU is good enough for almost every game at low detail, enough to log in at your favorite online game in a distant hotel for the 2 hours before the metting start, Intel iGPU isn't enough, but Intel have a better CPU so I have to make this unfortunate choice...
BTW, I don't care about the boring fraction of the market that don't play casual games, I think that is a shrinking market, no need to work 16 hours a day and weekends, there is a high unemployement rate, go play something and leave some work for the ohers.
> But who needs it?
The part of market wich matter for me, myself.
> Even SandyBridge (P3000) GPU 3D performance is an overkill for all, but a tiny fraction
> of users. P4000 is bigger overkill. Haswell would be horrible overkill.
> I really don't see a point in "decent" 3D performance. Either you have "good" performance,
> i.e. enough to play all, but the most demanding 3D games, or do enough of 3D to support the
> heaviest GUI stuff and don't spend chip area and power budget on anything above that.
> The 1st goal is clearly unattainable for mass market IGPs
> due to current packaging limitation (memory bandwidth).
> So, IMHO, the best for us, [desktop] customers, would be if Intel was doing the 2nd, i.e. Clarkdale level
> of 3D performance or even slightly less than Clarkdale at close to zero power cost and small area cost.
For desktop I almost agree with you, the part I disagree is because I prefer no iGPU at all since I will use a dedicated chip, for corporate desktops I still not sure if the best place for the graphics logic is next to the CPU, but for mobile a dedicated chip isn't all that good (power, cost for a not so impressive performance) so a good iGPU is welcome.
AMD iGPU is good enough for almost every game at low detail, enough to log in at your favorite online game in a distant hotel for the 2 hours before the metting start, Intel iGPU isn't enough, but Intel have a better CPU so I have to make this unfortunate choice...
BTW, I don't care about the boring fraction of the market that don't play casual games, I think that is a shrinking market, no need to work 16 hours a day and weekends, there is a high unemployement rate, go play something and leave some work for the ohers.
