Intel: Integrated Graphics is Where It's At
Intel is telling developers to consider integrated graphics solutions. Yes, really.
We love our graphics hardware. The offerings from AMD and Nvidia are always interesting to track from one generation to the next, each offering a significant jump from the previous to give us prettier, smoother games.
So what is Intel going on about when it says developers have good reason to be looking at integrated graphics? Well, for one, Intel is currently the biggest vendor of graphics parts, outpacing anything from Nvidia or AMD -- and that’s completely thanks to the IGPs that come with the Intel chipsets.
As first reported by CNet, in a recent video posted on Intel’s site, Aaron Davies, a senior marketing manager in the Intel Visual Computing Software Development group explained why game developers need to be paying the most attention to integrated graphics. "Here's your answer: Mercury Research showed that in 2008, for the first time, integrated graphics chipsets outsold discrete (graphics chips), and in 2013, we expect to see integrated graphics chipsets outsell discrete by three to one," Davies said.
Davies reiterated the point again that Intel wants to help developers capture where it believes the market will be when it comes to mobile gaming and integrated graphics from here on. He cited that with laptop sales surpassing desktop sales in 2008, gaming on integrated graphics are more important that ever.
Intel believes that developers now have a big business opportunity at targeting integrated graphics, which is essentially catering to the lowest common denominator. One thing is for certain: integrated (and eventually embedded) graphics will be even more common with Intel’s Westmere i7-based processors, and the Pineview Atom-based chips.
What do you think? Could this mark the beginning of the end of the need for high-end, $500 discrete graphics cards?
- Dell Netbook Roadmap Leaked
- Microsoft: HP Gets Another Year of XP
- New Microsoft Ad Says Being Sexy Isn't Everything
- AMD Restructuring Costs Revealed
- IBM, Sun Acquisition Deal Collapses
- Time Warner Unveils 40 GB Bandwidth Cap
- Texas Plans Ban of Vista From Government PCs
- QOTD: Do You Use Linux/BSD With a GUI?
- Gigabyte: Enable SLI On X58 Boards
- Bill Allows Obama Power to Shut Down Internet
- Reviewed & Benched: Company of Heroes: ToV
- Microsoft to Allow Win 7 Downgrades to Vista, XP
- HP Launches Pavilion dv2 Notebook for $749
- Sun's Options Without IBM: Split Up?
- Windows Loaded on 96 Percent of New Netbooks
- Intel Hints at Octa-Core CPUs this Year
- QOTD: What's Your Favorite PC Game of All Time?
- Build Your Own Multi-touch Surface Computer
People who buy products with integrated graphics (laptops) will never play COD4, Far Cray... so, they aren't target group for the game developers. Mozilla, Opera, Safari, text editors, media players and a like, are concerned about this questions. So, don't be fulled buy the 1:3 ratio
Typical... Intel makes crappy product and tells everyone to buy it... Well No Intel - thank you very much... Unfortunately resellers don't share this idea and will sell anything that is cheaper for the end-user who is a brainless bag of money to them. Then again it's interesting to see how Intel tries to get as much as possible out of its procucts... Larabee (or whatever the name is) is based on old Pentium (amazing idea I have to admit, but still), Intel IGPs are pretty much on its way out, so now Intel promotes the numbers that everyone knows... But let me guess - in 6 months time I will see a bit more Intel IGP's laptops in the nearest PC World regardless of Nvidia ION offering more punch for less watts and probably cheaper... ATI could do the same... Could we just nicely ask Intel to stop being apple and innovate something again?
although integrated graphics are getting better and better, nvidia's Tegra for example.
Intel's can't catch upto the race, Tegra can already output blu-ray quality, OMAP4 is already past Intel's GPU/CPU stage and can output blu-ray and AMD's integrated graphics are the best on the market. Sure, you're not gonna be able to play crysis at decent levels on them but you could probably get Far Cry running at 1280x720 at 20fps on amd's offering.
Integrated graphics have their place and with the advances NVIDIA have made they are starting to become more useful. Gamers and professionals will always require dedicated graphic systems simply because their activities require graphic performance "above the norm", however for the bulk of users out there enough to drive a screen well, manipulate some photos and play some videos is all they need.
My issue with integrated graphics though is them eating into my system RAM. Granted, any system that I have with integrated graphics isn't intended to be a primary or heavy-duty system so I make the concessions, but I've been around people and systems where the RAM allocated to graphics has been maxed, dipping the rest of it below what I personally consider acceptable levels for the OS.
I echo tinnerdxp's call for innovation. I'd love to see integrated graphics properly define their role and be built to fulfil it, and that role is that of the "everyday engine".
I want enough hardware acceleration to run Windows Aero/OSX Aqua nicely. I want enough computing power to decode 1080p Blu-Ray without bothering the CPU. I want to be able to arrange, sort and play with my tens-of-megapixel photos without lagging or jerking about, and hell even knock out a basic video or two from my camcorder. But the main thing is I want to have its own dedicated memory.
Basically, if all the tech companies are trying to push us into this "digital lifestyle" I want my integrated graphics to empower that so I don't have to think about it.
NVIDIA and AMD have already made great strides towards that goal and who knows really what Larrabee will be like, but I think whoever can properly define this role and get that solution out there first will then totally dominate the integrated graphics market.
I couldn't have said it better than LePhuronn.
I agree completeley