What is Digg?66 Comments
- giginger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+65Why?
I don't understand why someone would be loyal to a hardware vendor. At the moment AMD have swapped positions with Intel. AMD came into the market as the cheaper of the two. Then they overtook Intel and had the better processors. Now Intel are cheaper and have better processors. There's no prizes for sticking with one company. Go with what's best value. Not with what you'll think will earn you geek points. - usernameistaken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+52What's best for games? A non-integrated graphics card. If you're running integrated graphics to play a game like Oblivion, it won't matter which company you choose; either one will suck.
- illicium, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23Intel has official OSS X11 drivers. AMD/ATI doesn't.
- Lane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19its kinda like nascar in a clown car
- ph3rny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20And Why is Nvidia on AMD's side...
Doesn't AMD own ATI? - BitSlash, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23@giginger:
Because some people choose hardware vendors to side with like people choose sports teams to side with. Not saying it's necessarily a bad thing, unless you're strictly looking for performance, quality, etc. One wouldn't just change football teams because their team is losing. This is how some people feel about certain brand names- as long as they retain a positive public image. This goes for every other company also- (Nintendo, Apple, etc.) - RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Does "best for games" and "integrated graphics" belong in the same paragraph?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11my thoughts exactly, but does nvidia currently make the amd integrated? i've no idea
- the_snitch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"Desktop integrated graphics are 60 per ceent of the desktop market and discrete graphics are 40 per cent.
Mobile integrated graphics are 76 per cent of the desktop market and discrete graphics are 24 per cent"
Who edited this crap? - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Strange. I can remember people saying a certain company making 3DFX cards would never be toppled. They fell within moments or it being said. Technology will rule, especially in gaming.
Lets be serious for the moment. If AMD or Intel wanted to knock ATI or Nvidia out of the game they could do so with ease. Both companies are much bigger than the GFX card producers and happen to know a thing of two more than ATI/Nvidia about CPU production. - metalhead3767, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6No way. If intel enters the non-integrated graphics market it will be with their own brand. They want complete control over the pc, from the motherboard, the chipset, the wireless card, to the processor and graphics. They want to do it all.
- DagMX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@bitslash
i think his argument was to say that if you liked AMD for its price and performance ratio, then you now have no reason to like AMD since intel fits both your requirements better.
When it comes to teams, its not always the fact that they win that counts. they could be a hometeam or you could like individual players or something about the team fits your requirements for liking it.
But wen it comes to hardware, the main requirements are bang for buck, and while AMD did offer that, intel does it better now.
Therefore i agree with him. Theres no point in siding with one hardware company when another fulfills your requirements better.
And i generally find(personal opinion) that people who still side with AMD this generation are people who don't really understand the reasoning behind why AMD was better last generation. Last generation, people were struggling to come to terms that AMD was better since they were raised to believe intel was better. But when they finally were taught that AMD was better, intel regained their crown and now those people have difficulty understanding this change.
Oh and i do realise that this article was about graphics rather than CPUs, but i think my argument applies to that as well if needed.
oh and before anyone call me a fanboy, my computer runs an FX55 - BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5NVIDIA makes its own integrated graphics--the 6100 and 6150--that is uses in its lower-end nForce motherboards.
- muramasa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Who gives a ***** about Windows Vista.
Intel is the only choice for a graphics chipset because they have open source drivers. - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I say buy intel because of the open source drivers for the on-board GPUs. Because of this a company I occasionally work with can sell computers that will be AIGLX+Beryl capable with a completely Free maintainable OS inexpensively. & users can benefit.
- colklink, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I was thinking more along the lines of the Special Olympics of video acceleration...
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Intels problem is mostly that they use shared system RAM so put an extra strain on a datapath that is already very strained on x86 machines. They could make a decent card tomorrow if they used separate RAM with its own datapaths rather than exacerbating what is already a major choke point on x86.
The problem is that defeats the point which is an onboard graphics device for grandma rather than gamers. - schroduggity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4well they use the nforce chipset on some boards. furthermore with the AMD-ATI parternship, Intel will undoubtedly have to step up their integrated chipsets.
- iofthestorm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yeah, I hate how everyone on the internet acts like you need a GeForce 8800GTX to run Vista. For the OS effects, the requirements are 128MB DirectX 9.0 card and 1GB RAM I believe, not exactly high end. (well 1GB is somewhat higher end but XP runs like ***** on anything under 512MB so it's not that bad.) Personally, I hope that Vista forces OEMs to make better baseline systems so that people on a low budget aren't stuck with things like Celeron 3Ghz with 256MB RAM.
- joe90210, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6more proof that Vista's requirements are exagerated, integrated cards will run it all fine. my laptop's x200m integrated card scored 2.0 on the vista index and it runs every vista visual effect easily,
- prab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I have a laptop. It only had the option of integrated graphics.
- kethraal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"For the OS effects, the requirements are 128MB DirectX 9.0 card and 1GB RAM I believe, not exactly high end. (well 1GB is somewhat higher end but XP runs like ***** on anything under 512MB so it's not that bad."
I'm sorry, but when you require a 128MB card and a gig of RAM to run a ***** display, that might... just maybe... be "high-end". I've coded for platforms where I would have killed for a whole meg of RAM... and yes, it did have a usable GUI (but no OMGSHINY!!! effects.)
Also... how is it that Beryl is able to do much more amazing (and demanding) effects with less? (I know the actual answer is that DirectX pretty much sucks for real graphics work.) - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yeah its Direct3D, nobody will touch it outside the gaming world. OpenGL is superior technically its just there are a lot of games development tools for DirectX and there was that period where MS took to breaking OpenGL with updates.
Also remember MS moved their GUI outside of the kernel this time (to improve security) so the context switching is naturally going to increase hardware demands.
Other than that the OSS devs have a much more critical audience in these matters so can't get away with as much as MS can with their customers. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not blindly promoting AMD since i think your pro Intel comments might have merit (unless it's because Intel chips are in Macs)
But Ive often chosen AMD, for price, performance, and the fact they use Intel and AMD instruction sets, while Intel only uses Intel.
Then there's the ridiculous factor. Because this issue is ridiculous.
If you are buying a Mac, you aren't getting anyones best processors, so whose fastest isn't a concern (also you are locked with Intel). Unless you are buying the best chip on the market this argument is irrelevant because there will be AMD and Intel chips in your price/performance bracket to choose from.
Yeah a quad core is better then dual. Chances are, you aren't going to buy the very first ones they make... and come June they both have them out... then whatever. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I don't think anyone is implying that they are good for gaming. They would've tested some more demanding games if that was the point. They just wanted to give people an idea of how they perform, and usually games are a good benchmark of that. The basic point was these are fine low-end cards for Vista, but the bare minimum that most people will want. Definitely not for gamers, to me that seemed pretty clear from the review.
- tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"and who would buy an integrated graphics computer anyway?"
Uh ... most business customers.
Most anyone who's not interested in PC gaming.
Someone building a budget box so their kid can read their email and check websites.
In short? Most of the world. - dAbReAkA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2for vista: nVIDIA.. ati/amd will have their drivers ready in 2010 when viena gets released..
thx ati, but i dont want your driverless devices anymore.. - gtlogic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5lol @GMorgan, I couldn't refrain from laughing at your response. I couldn't even tell if you were being serious.
1. Both companies are much bigger than the GFX card producers
Considering that NVIDIA (13.33 B market cap) is BIGGER than AMD (12.13 B)... you'd think maybe you were on to something. But then compare Intel vs AMD. Even Intel has had a difficult times fighting AMD in the past, and they're 10 times larger! Oh right, they *wanted* to let them win! lol, who are we kidding?
2. and happen to know a thing of two more than ATI/Nvidia about CPU production
Uhh, perhaps that's why Nvidia doesn't make CPUs?! Designing a CPU is so vastly different from a GPU that you might as well be comparing apples to oranges. Both tasks are extremely hard, but they are very.. very different. Did I say very? Oh yes, I think I did.
Sorry dude, but you really have no idea about how these industries work. - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, seriously. If the requirements were as bad as Microsoft is touting, Vista would fail so miserably hard that Billy Boy would have to come in with a personal investment to save his old company.
Not that it's not already a serious failure (two years late, not as feature complete as they were claiming, and jam-packed with Things the Consumer Doesn't Want). I figure business will, on the whole, stick with XP as long as microsoft supports it. Then, when MS stops supporting it, their stock price will crash.
...
Nah, they'll just strongarm the business sector into moving to Vista, making the linux fanboys angry again.
Hey, anybody up for TPing Steve Ballmer's house? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Umm sorry to break it ya buddy, but Intel does NOT have 45nm chips out in retail yet.
- tgunner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The computer I'm building now will use the intel GMA X3000 integrated graphics until I can purchase the new GeForce 8600 around March. The integrated will have to do for the time being. I don't have much other choice, unless I want to spend $40 on suck-ass PCI-E card.
- tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks for the recap, for those who may only have a 4th grade reading level. Real insightful.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The figures do match, there are 1st quarter 2006 figures for both companies.
Quite simply there is more money in other markets. Limited resources so they focus on other areas. They would like to rule all of them but AMD and Intel aren't going to throw money at the GFX card arena when there's still the growing laptop CPU market, the embedded market and general expansion in formerly developing countries.
They do so for the exact same reason IBM don't bother with the PC market anymore. They could be a major player but the costs of getting in would produce a bigger return in other markets. Why try to fight Intel/MS when you can make a better return selling chips for consoles and embedded computers. - gtlogic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Intel onboard graphics.. mmm.
- gtlogic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Basically what you're telling me is Intel and AMD are not throwing money at the graphics card market. And you came to that conclusion despite:
1. Intel's efforts to get into high end graphics. Intel's significantly large graphics department. Intel's investment in graphics card companies (C&T comes to mind)
2. AMDs 5 BILLION dollar acquisition of ATI. Limited resources? Whatever.
Obviously there is money to be made here, or perhaps you should have called AMD personally to tell them your insights about growing laptop CPU markets?
Companies do not get involved in markets because of barriers to entry and intense competition, as you point out. But this makes getting into those markets and surviving "difficult", not "easy". If something about it were easy, then they'd have done it by now, especially if they're making efforts there.
Trying to come up with a competitor to high end graphics is just not easy as you make it out to be, and that's the ONLY way you'll knock ATI/NVIDIA out of the game. EVEN if you think it's just about making a GPU, you've missed the big picture. There are patents, company relationships (particularly with MS and D3D APIs), relations with game companies and developers, pushing graphics standards, vendors, product recognition, the list goes on and on. There is so much more to it than you take into consideration... all because you try to oversimplify the problem.. because somehow by having good CPU technology is a magical panacea in the GPU world.
Easy? Hardly. It smells like oversimplified ***** to me. Good luck with your next intel GPU purchase. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3To qualify I mean ATI have good graphics cards while the Intel on board chips are flawed.
Intel make the best CPUs at present for the first time in an age and should be applauded for it. - tdowling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"If you are buying a Mac, you aren't getting anyones best processors"
If you are buying just about any pre-assembled computer, you aren't getting anyone's best processors. Apple's using the Core 2 Duo and Xeon, which are what you'll find at the high end of the other guys as well. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How about making a laptop with a video card that goes in a PC card slot?
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know AMD have bought out ATI, I just commented that they could. I didn't say it was likely.
Also Core 2 Duo is on a 65nm die not 45nm ;). - Viral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Worst Review Ever.
"The Intel box's scores were higher, but then it didn't offer the choice to show off its graphics muscles at the price of a lower frame-rate"
Uhhh.... wha? Obviously not as integrated solution don't typically offer any real hardware support, but then who cares if by enabling a discrete card's hardware enhancements you're pushing yourself below a reasonable, playable level. Methinks common sense may be required here (not to mention a newer AMD platform). - Giga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think the point was that it said "MOBILE integrated graphics are 76 per cent of the DESKTOP market"...
- gtlogic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You first made your claims without posting sources, perhaps you should take heed to your own advice? I posted actual market cap data that you can find virtually anywhere on the net. Who cares if I post my sources? Even the sources you post aren't even comparing the same quarters!
Regardless, that point is moot. Your argument was that AMD and Intel were *much* larger than Nvidia, and could knock them out with ease. With such a bold claim (with no sources mind you), please enlighten us as to why they have not done so already? While you're at it, enlighten us why intel graphics cards suck ass, and AMD had to buy ATI for their graphics IP? I mean, if they know a thing or two about CPUs, why spend ~5 billion on a graphics card company?
You oversimplify, both the dynamics between CPU/GPU companies and the individual complexities between a GPU/CPU. You do not understand the GPU development, specifically with all the quirks associated with adhering to the various graphics APIs.
Reality backs up my point. Neither AMD nor Intel has a more technologically dominant graphics card. We both know "technology will rule, especially in gaming." So if they did rule, doncha think it'd be out by now? - SuperSloth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dude, I get like 120 fps in Solitare now. I'd link my FRAPS but I'd be dugg down for it....
- staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@giginger
Maybe also because of personal experience. In my lifetime the amd's coupled with nvidia cards have been heaven sent for me. I do not have any issues with intel (the amd's just seem to perform better) and I have only minor gripes with ATI (glitchy system performance and missing options). But that is my level of comfort. You don't see a difference? Then you must have some awesome luck but most peoples likes and dislikes are based off of personal experiences. - tokyopimp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3For those comparing sports teams to hardware manufactures, please stop.
Football is a sport, and you get emotionally attached to your home team. AMD and Intel are huge companies making chips for computing use. It's totally different, you aren't showing up at an AMD vs Intel game.
But I somewhat understand why one would get so attached to a specific company like AMD or Intel or nvidia, you have one of there products and you love it. But you should also objectively look at it's competitors and there products, and if everyone is saying Intel or AMD is making the best chip then give it a go. - mitrovarr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2If you care enough to compare integrated graphics chips, you care enough to buy a real graphics card. Seriously, even a $40 budget card from a generation ago will make an Intel GMA look like it was made out of vacuum tubes and tin wire. They are THAT bad. Why would you put any money into your computer whatsoever if you are going to neglect an important component so badly? Unless you are just getting a dirt-cheap web-browsing machine that isn't ever going to run a game, Windows Vista, or Google Earth, it's a bad idea.
- 15thPD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1My PC is a 3.2ghz Intel P4 with hyperthreading, 2GB ram, and ATI onboard graphics. I can set all of Oblivion's settings as low as they will go, and can't even get a smooth framerate in the jail cell that the game starts out in. I'm talking like 8fps here.
This is before I got my Nvidia GeForce 7800GTX a week ago. Now, with all settings on medium-high (HDR enabled, max distance for everything, but disabled shadows) I get very smooth playable framerates, that I would estimate to be in the 40s and 50s.
The moral here is that onboard graphics are *****. - Giga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Always on top... not at the moment"
I detect a bit of a contradiction there - always generally implies never being behind, in which it currently is. - Giga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Szat
Most of the market would, it seems... - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2No that's fairly accurate. Remember that what we see as something to smash, burn, then send to hell others see as the place to 'plug the computer into the CPU'.
Integrated graphics are utterly dominant in the laptop market.
Everyone on Digg is just used to arguing over Nvidia and ATI because we take care about what parts we put in our machine. Nobody from the general bargin bin crowd comes on here but they make up 95% of the market. -
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is