Linus Torvalds (torvalds@linux-foundation.org) on 9/29/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>mpx (mpx@nomail.pl) on 9/29/10 wrote:
>>
>>As I've said it's an industry-wide problem: inability to sell quality products
>>at reasonable prices to mass consumers. A discrete GPU is a superior product, most
>>people have money to spend in computer price ranges, yet industry will convince them they only need an Intel IGP.
>
>You're on drugs.

I wonder if David Kanter will send you a warning.

>A discrete GPU is absolutely not a superior product.
>
>It's extra expense, it's a slow interconnect, and it's
>extra power and size that most of the market neither needs
>nor wants.
>
>So your whole basic premise is just f*%^ed up.

Maybe one more warning?

>You think
>the market is illogical, but you don't see that it's your
>own opinions that simply don't reflect reality. The market
>is acting fairly rationally, as you'd expect.
>
>Integrating the GPU with the CPU allows for size reduction,
>power reduction, better communication between the two, and
>allows for the two to share resources like the cache or
>the thermal headroom. To top it off, it has some obvious
>huge manufacturing advantages, which makes it cheaper than
>the discrete version.
>
>Sure, discrete chips allow for a bigger total die size and
>thermal envelope, and it's why things have traditionally
>been discrete. It was why floating point units and even
>memory management units were done as separate chips.
>
>But on the whole, the disadvantage of discrete chips are
>much bigger than the advantages. The fact that you
>think that discrete graphics is somehow fundamentally a
>better thing shows how crazy your whole argument is.
>
>So you're just full of crap. Ranting against the market
>is just a symptom of how fundamentally wrong you are.
>
>Linus

The last sentence is "interesting", since it comes from someone who has pro-socialist opinions about certain economic matters.