[ITP]The danger Intel's Haswell poses to Nvidia and AMD - Page 19  

That's why I said Instructions Per Second to account for low-IPC high clock and high-IPC low clock CPUs.

As for the multi-threaded tasks, I wouldn't be surprised if Intel respond by throwing an additional pair of cores at the desktop i7s and HT for the i5s and i3s. They got an IPS advantage per core, and they could keep scaling up the cores if necessary.

My suspicion of why Intel has little interest in GPU computing is because they know that GPUs are their weakness, but CPUs is obviously their strength. So it's reasonable to expect Intel to delay GPU computing, such as with their x86 based thousand core cards that they released more than a year ago.

I don't hate AMD, but Intel is far ahead in everything (finances, engineers, fabs, etc) but GPUs.

Yep, and according to the Intel engineer Broadwell is going to be a nice increase...Hopefully AMD can keep increasing performance enough to match them hopefully.
That said, most people will be fine with that new 6w Jaguar quad. (Not us, most consumers, I'm definitely going to use it a lot for non-gaming friends builds I feel..)

An old thread can contain good discussion, people posting "Oh my god guys its a necro! LEAVE IT!" is what ruins these topics. Granted, it was bumped with a useless post..but discussion is occurring nonetheless.

That's what I get for internetting before my coffee.

They're not for Haswell or for Broadwell so the soonest we'd see it is Skylake, I believe AMDs CMT also scales better so they could also just bump up the module count too.

AMD should be able to deliver, one aspect to keep in mind is the manufacturing process that both AMD and Intel are currently using. Intel is already on 22nm and capabilities were shown with the HD 4000 series. The 200% increase in performance is due to them likely spending more time tweaking their graphics architecture. Which will eventually show yields with any major gains at a certain point. AMD on the other hand is still rocking the 32nm CPU manufacturing process and VLIW4 (which is 40nm architecture). Both of these will be reduced greatly once Kaveri (Steamroller) rolls around, CPU and GPU will jump down to 28nm. Which not only brings the performance gains of GCN architecture, but also should open up a lot of room on the die for extra shaders. The only problem with that is they will also be adding in a ARM chip for HSA. Depending on the size of the chip, we could see shaders lift from 384 up beyond 500 with Kaveri. So the possibility of seeing HD 7750 grade graphics (512 shaders) onboard a Kaveri chip is quite fees-able. Since by then HD 8000 series will be out, and AMD will be phasing out the low end HD 7000 series. Tho I doubt we will see graphics performance of that magnitude due to it increasing the overall cost of the processor (something AMD doesn't want to do because of OEM sales). Even if they don't, 384 GCN cores will be a huge step up from Trinity, so Intel still has quite a ways to go to catch up. The only reason Intel's graphics department looks good right now, is because AMD has been rocking the same old graphics architecture in the past two generations of their APU's. The thread likes to make it out that Intel is making ground on both AMD and Nvidia, in which they are somewhat. Intel has had an iGPU packed in with their processors long before AMD released their APU's. Don't get me wrong im not trying to make Intel out to look bad, because a 200% gain over last generation is an insane accomplishment. It's just even with that gain, they are still far behind the rat race. Tho I guess Intel could care less about competing among the gaming industry, as their iGPU's are there for accelerating desktop applications like photoshop.
Edited by BlankName - 2/26/13 at 8:49pm

I think Intel is more interested in providing a GPU good enough for movies to cut Nivida and AMD out of the mobile/low-end market. Some of Intel's older GPUs back in mid or early 2000s can't render 720p or even 480p videos smoothly, or even at all.

HD3000 is already good enough for 1080p movies and basic gaming. HD4000 was significantly more powerful, and that clearly is aimed at low budget gamers.

Virtually every Intel chipset since they started putting the iGPU on the CPU (ie. Socket 1156 and 1155) has been more than good enough for HD movies, even the later 775 ones were.

Hmm, wonder how long it would take with Intel's funds to actually develop and release a dedicated GPU that would spank the living hell out of both Nvidia and AMD. They surely won't do it but just as an idea.

My present laptop has a Core 2 Duo and the 4000 series (not HD) does fine with HD movies, but sucks ass with Mechwarrior Tactics. I suspect the HD 4000 would probably be adequate for that, but I wouldn't actually buy a new Intel computer (this is a rescue job, it kept eating hard drives the previous owner had me install).

A long, LONG time. If Intel were ever interested in discrete graphics, I think they would have purchased 3dfx when it went into bankruptcy.

That's enough -

Locked.