I'm an advocate of getting a third company in for bigger fighting over market share getting us a better deal, so this is frustrating as all hell. Completely not expecting them to properly compete with amd or nvidia on the 1st gen, maybe not even the 2nd gen, but it sounds almost like it's complete trash. 1st gen should be bare-bones (driver and hardware), compete at the low end with good costings, build up a reputation then iterate on that each generation until they can compete higher up. This sort of bodge-job is what'll cause them to pull out and leave us again with just amd/nvidia.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel Arc series unveiled with the Alchemist dGPU to arrive in Q1 2022
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
Caporegime
Like i said a couple of pages back, the problem isn't that its a duopoly, it is a monopoly.
A third player isn't going to make the blindest bit of difference unless the cause of that ^^^^^ is resolved, Intel will take nothing, from either of them so the status quo will continue.
Caporegime
Look, in the way that AMD have to be way better than Nvidia, at everything, to take any sort of meaningful market share from Nvidia. Which is the only thing that will cause Nvidia to notice.
Its Nvidia who set the pricing trend, AMD slot themselves in just below where ever Nvidia chose to go.
So for Intel to have any effect on this they would have to out do AMD' out doing Nvidia.
So in this Intel don't even matter.
That is the problem.
Its Nvidia who set the pricing trend, AMD slot themselves in just below where ever Nvidia chose to go.
So for Intel to have any effect on this they would have to out do AMD' out doing Nvidia.
So in this Intel don't even matter.
That is the problem.
Last edited:
I think I just got triggered by the first sentence of that video...
"Prices for tech products like graphics cards, gaming consoles and automobiles could cool down after the 52 billion dollar bill to boost semiconductor fabrication plants in the us passed in congress. That's going to support companies like Intel"
Really!? Intel do make GPUs, however mediocre, but they're fabricated by TSMC, they don't make games consoles and their input into automobiles is absolutely tiny - mostly Mobileye that they're planning to sell. So no, no it won't affect those items in any meaningful way anytime soon, if ever.
</off-topic rant>
Caporegime
For good political reasons we have to build our own technology infrastructure.
This globalist dependence on other nations for critical infrastructure was a mistake, again, yes its a mistake we keep repeating because we are idealogical and in the end it turns out that far from sharing and caring making people nice they just see it as a weakness and use it against us.
Intel are a western foundry, and they need a leg up, fine.
But there are others, and TSMC, the T in TSMC is "Taiwanese" are our friends, they mistrust the CCP as much as we do, and they are the global leaders in this field, i have no doubt that with some help from us, and the threat of the CCP as they see it, they would be quite happy to become a westernised company.
I don't think giving Intel this "investment" is a bad thing, but i also think it might be wasted, i don't think Intel are capable of becoming a TSMC equivalent, no matter how much money is "invested" and we already have a TSMC right there willing to work with us.
This globalist dependence on other nations for critical infrastructure was a mistake, again, yes its a mistake we keep repeating because we are idealogical and in the end it turns out that far from sharing and caring making people nice they just see it as a weakness and use it against us.
Intel are a western foundry, and they need a leg up, fine.
But there are others, and TSMC, the T in TSMC is "Taiwanese" are our friends, they mistrust the CCP as much as we do, and they are the global leaders in this field, i have no doubt that with some help from us, and the threat of the CCP as they see it, they would be quite happy to become a westernised company.
I don't think giving Intel this "investment" is a bad thing, but i also think it might be wasted, i don't think Intel are capable of becoming a TSMC equivalent, no matter how much money is "invested" and we already have a TSMC right there willing to work with us.
Yes, I agree with you. TSMC are building fabs in the US, they must be supported too (unfortunately the overwhelming majority of the money is going to Intel with no strings attached which was a valid criticism of the bill).
I wasn't really ranting against the subsidies but more their take on it which is just so dumb.
There's good arguments for subsidising and protecting industries to reduce dependency on foreign actors. There's also good arguments that protectionism is bad mmmkay.
The major caveat of the bolded, is that the only deliver this performance in a very select set of games (and synth benchmarks: Intel are experts at optimising for those synths). Now, sometime that doesn't matter as a decade old DX9 game (unless modded to the hilt like FO4 and Skyrim) should perform well enough. Yes it is poor in reviews to only get 200 FPS while AMD and Nvidia get 400 FPS (take some extreme numbers) but that should not be the end of the world.
In those case (old games which a phone should be able to run these days), you'd almost want to worry far more about stability and other issues than pure performance. But when Intel have poor performance in these old games plus stability and other problems. Well, you have sell below cost.
Hm, since Nvidia have always been fab-less (but still have near to 70% margins), maybe those insider trading politicians aren't that bright? I can't see how, for example giving Intel $50 billion is going to help Nvidia since AFAIK the bill didn't make Intel's gifts conditional on them separating their foundry business from their design business. If ARC is till around after Intel have the money, then they can actually afford to sell ARC below costs with the government bailing them out. Nvidia might then find them in the position AMD faced when each Intel Atom CPU was wrapped $20 of contra revenue: AMD's 'Cat CPUs (which in many way were better than Atom in terms of perf/watt, perf/area, iGPU feature set, etc.) were totally unable to compete.
(Although ironically due to Xbox One and PS4, the AMD cat CPUs are probably the best selling x86 CPUs of all time.)
or maybe they are campaigning for intels competitor to be on the bill
Caporegime
Intel always say daft crap like that, they are a weird company.
That money is for developing and building fabs, i supose Intel could use it for anti competitive purposes but if they do i'm sure Nvidia and AMD might have something to say about it, i very much doubt Congress would want to be seen aiding or funding anti competitive actions between American companies, the whole point is to help American companies as a whole, not pay for one in its efforts to undermine others.
Caporegime
Also, i think its going to cost more than $52bn to develop and build these fabs, hence the austerity comment from Gelsinger, Intel will have to make up the difference from their own coffers.
Well, to late for that part!
Intel spend most of the 90s using any trick it could find to defeat all the various RISC and similar vendor - most of whom were American.
Sure, while x86 was pretty dire until at least the Pentium and economics of scale were a huge factor (Intel basically had a licence to print money after IBM made the infamous decision to go with that weird 8-bit/16-bit 8088 CPU for the original IBM PC), Intel also used tons of dirty tricks to get there.
All "allegedly" of course as they usually settle out of court rather than pleading guilty.
At least with the EC case, because if you have ever been found guilty by a monopoly commission (and the European Commission is the monopoly commission in the EU) then any subsequent cases go almost automatically to huge fines. As it was, all the bribery in the 00's almost succeeded as AMD almost went bankrupt and the others (Cyrix, WinChip etc.) went bust ages ago. Anyway, the fines for these kind of things are simply way too small. Even $1billion to have a gained a near monopoly for over a decade and made 10s if not 100s of $billion of extra profit: the fine if ever paid is just a slight slap on the wrist.
The stock market is not bright sometimes: people often buy the company with the wrong name because it's spelled similarly, this happened a fair amount in the pandemic. They hear CHIPS and buy chip companies, the politicians are profiting from that.
Associate
I hope the botched driver release gets sorted out, it's quite sad that Intel look like they didn't even try to test them before unleashing the cards.
Soldato
Intel have gone public with the A750 performance results.
game.intel.com
For a first stab, it is not looking bad.
The article has Ryan Shrout's name tagged on the end of it so pinch of salt needed
Intel® Arc™ Graphics - A750 Benchmarked
Our friends at the Intel labs have been working hard playing a ton of games – yes, it’s work! – to validate the tireless efforts of our software and hardware engineers.
game.intel.com
For a first stab, it is not looking bad.
The article has Ryan Shrout's name tagged on the end of it so pinch of salt needed
Intel have gone public with the A750 performance results.
Intel® Arc™ Graphics - A750 Benchmarked
Our friends at the Intel labs have been working hard playing a ton of games – yes, it’s work! – to validate the tireless efforts of our software and hardware engineers.
For a first stab, it is not looking bad.
The article has Ryan Shrout's name tagged on the end of it so pinch of salt needed
hehehe
Tell me again, what kind of games does it work with
