Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel's Next IGP Slated to Run Sims 3

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 9 comments

Intel's next IGP is geared towards the mainstream and casual gamer.

Is Intel now focusing on the PC gamer? That's what a recent slide reveals, posted over on Donanimhaber.com. According to the image, Intel's next-generation integrated graphics processor will focus on the larger mainstream and casual gaming markets. Simply called the Intel HD within the slide, the next-generation IGP will be capable of playing The Sims 3, World of Warcraft, Battlefield Heroes, and even a Nancy Drew title.

While it may sound like we're dripping with sarcasm, we're really not. Previous helpings of Intel-based IGPs haven't been real winners, especially when it comes to PC gaming. If Intel has any hope of gaining some kind of market in the gaming industry, it will need to crank out an IGP capable of 1080p video and DirectX 11-capable graphics.

As it stands now, the upcoming Intel HD Graphics IGP will accompany Intel's Westmere CPUs. The "enthusiast" gamer may be left in the dark however, left to choose between ATI and Nvidia hardware. As for cost, the slideshow didn't specify, however if it's slated for the mainstream and casual gamer, the cost should be relatively cheap.

We're betting more info will appear next month at CES 2010.

Display 9 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    mi1ez , 30 December 2009 10:52
    a) where is this slide from with non dictionary words underlined?!

    b) what year are we talking?
  • 3 Hide
    wild9 , 30 December 2009 16:20
    You know, I've got nothing against people trying to innovate, but I just cannot understand why Intel is only now recognising where most of the market is.

    For years, AMD has been bashed to oblivion despite having world-class hardware (especially in the server and super-computer sectors) and despite AMD being tiny compared to Intel. AMD still beats Intel hands down when it comes to price/performance; anyone with a 785g chipset and an Athlon II x4 probably realises just how good that ration is..nothing can touch it and the games Intel has only just realised people are playing more? We've been here already..years ago..AMD and nVidia picked up on it.

    And yes, some people still delight in bashing AMD, citing i5's and i7's as being the best thing since sliced bread..they're still doing what Intel did a couple of years ago and not fully understanding where most of the market for home computing is. I reckon that by the time Intel even gets close to a stable IGP with decent gaming, that AMD will already be at the next level..with nVidia close behind. Intel's only hope of catching up is to cut it's losses and get some decent development teams.

    The recent economic storm has hit everyone hard, and that coupled with putting so many resources into x86 ventures may deplete Intel of some of the necessary resources it needs to play catch-up. Whatever the reason, until it can produce cheap, reliable and stable chipsets right across the board and at a reasonable price, it's simply a case of me going elsewhere. I am not affiliated with AMD or nVidia but from a business and domestic viewpoint I've been running systems from these people for years, day in day out and often under relentless heavy load..solid as a rock under anything I throw at them. The Intel hardware whilst being very good on the CPU front just cannot compete overall and it costs time, effort and money to rectify these problems just because the client insisted on having a particular spec.

    By the time Intel releases something it thinks will be capable, that triangle will be even bigger..and even more of it coloured green. Anything AMD loses in terms of syntethic CPU performance will continue to be nullified by it's chipsets because they did their homework :) 
  • -1 Hide
    malphas , 30 December 2009 22:16
    Most of the market? Most people are using their computers for IE/Firefox and iTunes, not games.
  • -1 Hide
    wild9 , 30 December 2009 23:15
    So why invest so much development in i7, rather than follow AMD's lead and offer a broad range of capabilities?

    AMD offers a wide range of cheap, capable CPU's that - in combination with 700 series chipsets - can handle almost anything thrown at them from productivity to HTPC use, even stream processing. All from 55nm chipsets that don't break a sweat and don't cost an arm and a leg.

    If you only want to run basic tasks, why would you wish to spend more doing it? Why would you want to invest in hardware that does not have the in-built capability to accommodate any future needs? AMD does it now, straight off the bat..and for the person who hasn't got the kind of money to buy i7's and DDR3 memory, this is the ideal scenario in my opinion.

    Either platform can run basic tasks, but AMD offers more performance, and more features particularly where media is concerned. The only saving grace (to an extent), for Intel has been nVidia..and by all accounts that relationship isn't doing too good at the moment. I've gone with Intel before..and been stung by their corporate, lacklustre approach to the age in which they live in, and I gave up recommending upgrades to clients on the basis of what I sold them - at their request - was just plain rubbish in comparison to what AMD was offering.
  • 0 Hide
    malphas , 31 December 2009 00:40
    Who cares? Intel and AMD both make x86 CPUs, the percievable differences to the end user are neglible, except at the high end where Intel *currently* have an edge (as anyone could work out from the benchmarks on this site alone). If you have a proper argument as to why AMD have any noteworthy benefits over Intel, then by all means tell us in a straightforward manner what they are, rather than rambling on a load of horseshit (e.g. "stung by their corporate, lacklustre approach to the age in which they live in" - wow).

    And i7 is just showboating/marketing, the real money will be from the kind of processors enthusiasts and gamers don't care about - i3's and the lower end i5's with integrated graphics, which is no doubt what the vast majority of OEM PCs are going to be sold with.
  • -2 Hide
    wild9 , 31 December 2009 02:31
    Due to your attitude I have nothing more to say to you - show some manners. End of discussion.
  • -1 Hide
    wild9 , 31 December 2009 02:44
    ^^ To the wider community: the fact I'm having to explain to the oh-so intelligent and polite individual above, "any noteworthy" AMD benefits over Intel with regards to their IGP technology is I feel a clear example of their delusion. I could also note their self-contradictory second paragraph, however I really don't have the time any more for trolls..I'd rather make money selling systems that do what people want rather than argue the TOSS with someone who clearly wishes to argue it.. :) 
  • 1 Hide
    malphas , 31 December 2009 04:19
    The second paragraph isn't contradictory, my points were:

    a) There is no major differences between Intel and AMD in similarly priced processors/platforms as far as the average user's end experience is concerned;

    b) The vast majority of PCs use low to low/mid end chips, which are Intel/AMD's bread and butter not i7s and the like which are for bragging rights as far as the chipmakers are concerned.

    All in all, making outlandish statements with a clear bias with no explanation or evidence for it, and then making excuses for not providing them when asked - under the pretense of being offended - is the clear sign of a bullshitter.
  • 0 Hide
    silverblue , 6 January 2010 22:55
    AMD are partly to blame. They know that their integrated solutions are clearly superior, clock for clock, to anything Intel is throwing out now, however there's little in the way of advertising to show people (aside of OEMs and the tech-savvy who frequent sites such as these) just what people are getting for their money.

    Even with AMD Vision ratings, who's going to pay attention to them?

    AMD could really do with a die shrink for its IGPs, too.