Jouni Osmala (josmala@cc.hut.fi) on 8/5/10 wrote:
>
>Only problem is that their integrated processor is going
>on worse process than the competitors.

Problem, yes. "Only problem"? No.

Their even bigger problem is that Intel is just damn good.

There was a much better window back when Intel had its
head up its ass, and was in denial about the problems with
Netburst, and holding x86 back due to pushing IPF.

AMD took advantage of that weak period for Intel (and
others tried ;)

These days? Unless Intel stumbles, I would not want to
compete against them as a newcomer. Especially not if I
were to try to sell higher-end graphics for gamers as a
package. Because that means that you have to compete with
Intel where they are strongest - you need good performance
from the CPU and multi-threading too.

People have mentioned VIA, but VIA doesn't compete in
that area. They are going for small and fairly embedded.
They compete on power and size, where Intel is still not
all that dominant (Atom really does leave plenty of room
to improve upon).

So even if nVidia had a good process to work with
(which I agree they don't, but maybe TSMC really is fixing
their problems), they would have a hell of a time getting
something that is competitive with a Nehalem core.

And I haven't seen Sandy Bridge yet, but I think it's going
to kick ass. Admittedly I base that mostly on "Intel has
been doing very well", and maybe they will have a rare
mis-fire this time around, but I really think that both
Intel and AMD are going to have quite competent integrated
graphics.

Meaning that nVidia really needs to shape up even in the
middle ground, never mind their high-end fight against
AMD.

Linus