• 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 in talks to license AMD GPU patents??

Phixsator said:
Removing the igpu from the K SKUs would make K chips a bit more sensible to purchase all of a sudden. I still regret getting the 4770k at times not because its an i7, i still think this was a wise choice for me, but because it overclocks like a potato and while i would not be garantied higher clock speeds if the igpu wasnt there im pretty sure it wouldnt have hurt my results either. The 10-15% OC i can get out of it is pathetic compared to the 54% i could get out of my C1 stepping i7 920 on air. No i dont expect a 3,9ghz CPU to OC 50+% but 20-25% would have been reasonable as a common sighting. Afterall that is why you buy a K part these days.
Click to expand...

My i7 clocks from 3.00Ghz to 4.4Ghz.

The joys of no iGPU and a soldered heatspreader. :D
 
d_brennen said:
False, as far as Intel are concerned. The VAST majority of the chips they sell end up powering the video systems too, and in laptops they switch between dGPU and iGPU dynamically to increase battery life. Expect more software using GPU compute to utilise iGPU cores even with a dGPU present. And when in low power state/gated, iGPUs most likely help spread/dissipate heat on the GPU die*
Intel are more likely to can "enthusiast" chips like the K series...*

*I have no idea if true, but were all just stating stuff with impunity here, right? :p
Click to expand...

Intel have a very large GPU on their die, igpu being required/useful and the igpu they actually have are extremely different things. For one thing the video decode and basic desktop output can be handled by extremely small IP blocks that would take up maybe, pushing it 5% of the size of the GPU they provide. 99% of their users have no need for more than 5% of the gpu power they require currently. It's a complete waste even in laptops for the vast majority of users. For those laptops that have discrete gpus also and switch between them again having a gpu taking up 10-15% of the space they currently do would save even more power at idle/desktop/playing video.

Since Intel went iGPU they've provided pretty much one gpu accelerated application in quicksync, which always had horrible quality, few options and honestly no one even mentions it any more. Not sure if it's supported in any better encoding software and if quality has improved or not. Intel have spent a monumental amount developing their GPUs, allowing them to take up around 50% of the die space but put in nearly zero effort trying to create an ecosystem in which devs are actually encouraged to utilise gpu accelerated code making the growing size of their GPUs completely ridiculous.

setter said:
understand what you mean, for low power systems and laptops I can see the appeal of an igpu. But as someone who has owned several Ivybridge and haswell/devils canyon chips. The integrated graphics was a hindrance. I had the misfortune of having to use it once on a 4770k. Much better to keep an old discrete card spare should your main one fail. Also tried the lucid feature that allows the igpu to work in tandem with a discrete card, extremely buggy tbh.

I remember 8Pack stating in a thread on here prior to the release of skylake that he had spoken with various Intel engineers and reccomended the removal of the igpu on k series chips. Savings could have been spent on improvements to the thermal issues on such cpu's.
Click to expand...

Ignoring Lucid, just their basic driver quality is awful, same game run on Intel or AMD/Nvidia, even with similar level power and similar framerate Intel provides horrible quality, horrible IQ and driver bugs galore. They have the hardware but put zero effort into their software. Make the drivers work in a few games like WoW(I assume) and ignore everything else.

andybird123 said:
Intel havent licenced actual GPU tech from nvidia, just some underlying patents. Intel havent really been struggling with their APU's and the timing of this basically seems to be based off "nvidia licence ends soon" type speculation. Except it doesnt end, they just dont have to keep paying for it.

It wouldnt really make sense for AMD to licence APU tech to their biggest competitor right when were told they finally have something competitive.
Click to expand...

As above, for the size of Intel's gpus their performance is horrific. Don't forget that their absolutely best igpu still frequently fails to beat what is effectively a 5 year old cpu, 2 year old gpu on a significantly larger process AMD APU. They have a huge number of transistors and their actual performance for the given transistor budget spent on the GPU is horrendous, as is IQ, driver quality, basically everything about it.

If AMD could have at the same time been putting out 22nm gpus with a huge chunk of cache on package it would be basically at least twice as fast as what Intel are providing.
 
I'm surprised Intel aren't making their own. After all modern GPUs are just a CPU mounted on a PCI card. Who wouldn't want a graphics card with an i5 on it :D
 
Rossi~ said:
Most probably nothing whatsoever that affects us much at all.
Click to expand...

.......

It obviously means more money for AMD. More money for R&D, driver improvement, etc etc.

It means AMD can provide more competition to NVIDIA, which is nothing but good news.

I notice several people playing this news (if true) down, these posters are usually fanatic NVIDIA supports, so best to take their pessimistic attitude with a pinch of salt.

/Playing with my 1070FE until Vega.
 
Dave2150 said:
.......

It obviously means more money for AMD. More money for R&D, driver improvement, etc etc.

It means AMD can provide more competition to NVIDIA, which is nothing but good news.
Click to expand...

Haha! Yes, obviously It will provide some money to AMD, but what they do with that cash we don't know and as for providing competition to nVidia, I'll believe it when I see it! But I doubt this will be a game changer for AMD at all.
 
Well it would certainly help a lot. They'd have GCN based gpu's in the console market, AMD gpu's, AMD CPUs and Intel CPUs.
That's a lot of exposure to the average gamer, as long as they market this well it could be one part of the game changer.
 
humbug said:
Heads AMD Wins, Tails Nvidia Loses
Summary

The unconfirmed Bloomberg article that said INTC might make a deal with AMD for GPU IP technology is probably true, once we connect the dots.

And if such a deal were to go through, AMD will be a clear-cut winner and NVDA a momentary loser.

AMD might end up being profitable soon, with zero debt as a result of the deal, which might elevate its stock to $10 or more.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

AMD share price just broke $10 - lol:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=a...SypFJLgYoOy-KR4uLj0c_UNzKuy4ytzeQDFw-_nOgAAAA

The first time since 2007.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
I'm surprised Intel aren't making their own. After all modern GPUs are just a CPU mounted on a PCI card. Who wouldn't want a graphics card with an i5 on it :D
Click to expand...

Its not really about the hardware - and while less relevant to integrated GPUs, etc. on low end stuff the factor that doesn't work so well with Intel is the software side - they tend to have an approach to software development that is more kind of get it right first time then leave it alone (i.e. develop a product/solution then move all focus onto the next one) which doesn't really work for GPUs.
 
Rroff said:
Its not really about the hardware - and while less relevant to integrated GPUs, etc. on low end stuff the factor that doesn't work so well with Intel is the software side - they tend to have an approach to software development that is more kind of get it right first time then leave it alone which doesn't really work for GPUs.
Click to expand...

TBF,Intel has actually worked with some game devs to introduce new tech like CMAA in GRID2. They are certainly far better than they used to be like 5 or even 10 years ago.
 
Nasher said:
I'm surprised Intel aren't making their own. After all modern GPUs are just a CPU mounted on a PCI card. Who wouldn't want a graphics card with an i5 on it :D
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised at all, have you seen how large Intel's best GPU is? Given what AMD have produced with Bristol Ridge which being made on 28nm vs Intel's 14nm process it makes perfect business sense for Intel to licence AMD' tech which will enable them to produce smaller die's and increase their margins when selling to the likes of HP and Dell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom