Intel exiting graphics chips market 83
KEM writes "According to this
news piece, Intel is giving up on the graphics market " They are going to still make integrated chipsets, but will no longer be making discrete graphics chips. Intel chalks it up not being able to keep up with the other chip makers, despite their purchase of Chips and Technologies in 1997, which was supposed to give them that edge.
My guess. (Score:1)
Re:Oh, that's a good idea... (Score:1)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
Re: clueless... (Score:1)
A video card, a SCSI card, an ethernet card, or two video cards, and a SCSI card, or use onboard video, and two SCSI cards and an ethernet card, or two ethernet cards and a SCSI card.
Versitility, a graphics workstation, a file server with heavy storage, or more network capacity.
PC with 2 PCI slots and 1 AGP slot = Less choices in the above!!!
= a market where vidboard manufacturers running scared from Intel make AGP cards instead of PCI cards, so the latest board isn't avail. for your legacy hardware with PCI only.
Make a better PCI bus, chuck AGP in the trash.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
Evil legacy (Score:1)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
Re: clueless... (Score:1)
in 99% of the cases, PCI isn't the bottleneck anyway.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
Re: clueless... (Score:1)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
Re:Intel learning (Score:1)
I always thought that it was just an oversight in the 80286 design and fixed in the 80386. Kinda how that Motorola (I think) processor had undefined opcodes that would disconnect the bus and short itself out internally. Probably meant as a test of some sort but got left in production and had nasty effects in production boxes. An oversight, and fixed in the next release.
Re:Intel learning (Score:1)
Gimme a break. The code doing so would have to reset all the interrupt vectors, segments and stack pointers. it isn't as simple as flipping va switch and keeping everything running.
'sides, triple faulting a CPU was pretty damn fast, considering IBM's decision to go through the keyboard controller instead. It just required BIOS help, which was the main problem.
Dont forget Matrox... (Score:1)
For 3dfx they seem to head for the way down, the inovation that they once had seem to be gone now...
And let's not forget the laptop computers that need a video card too (mainly NeoMagic, C&T, there where some Cirrus Logic too)...
Re:Evil legacy (Score:1)
I don't think this is true. The 64 bit addressing won't be used, that is all. Most 64 bit machines don't have the amount of memory alone to justify the 64 bit addressing, but it does improve throughbut.
Amen brother. (Score:1)
How about a new PCI bus. I'd like to see 64 bit PCI (I know there are some out there but unless Intel markets this technology it won't become mainstream too easily) and how about being able to hot swap PCI cards. Well that might take a bit of work but still wouldn't it be nice.
Intel lost that game... (Score:1)
Everyone was worried that Intel would start producing boards with their graphics chips built in (and integrated directly to the bus controller chips). I guess this proves that wrong.
I think 3Dfx and nVida are the only choices, even though 3Dfx looks like the Microsoft-wannabe of the graphics chip world. Matrox, S3 and ATI are great too; I use all three and think they're great.
--
All those old amortized fabs (Score:1)
Re:Matrox kicks ass (Score:1)
Looks like MMX for video (Score:1)
Re:Intel lost that game... (Score:1)
I have to disagree with this. They may be trying to maximize profits by refusing to sell their chips to other manufacturers, but they are definately not taking after MS.
There is more support for 3DFX cards than any other 3D card in Linux. There are less compatibility issues with other hardware than nVidia. (Try using a TNT2 in an ASUS mobo some time) And they're more reasonably priced for the performance you get, IMNSHO.
I do like nVidia, and I like the TNT and TNT2, and I own cards with each of those chipsets, but I have to say my main workstation has a 3dfx card in it. (mostly because of linux support, but even for the Wind0ze partition games)
Intel can't compete.... (Score:1)
The newest of the non-Intel graphics chipsets I mentioned can do AGP 4X, 32-bit graphics acceleration, and so on. Given that type of competition, no wonder Intel threw in the towel.
Re:Evil legacy (Score:1)
But you cant use a 64bit expansion card with a 32bit processor. So something else had to solve the bandwidth problem of PCI32.
Hopefuly, when 64bit intels come on the street Ill be able to plug in insanly fast sun or alpha videocards. 4d60t *growl*
Re:Intel learning (Score:1)
AMD make bloody good processors that are much more cost-effective than Intel's offerings of 3 times the price.. and as the other Intel / AMD topic on
And who ARE Transmeta these days?
Re: clueless... (Score:1)
But on the other point you are incorrect. Video card manufacturers are choosing AGP not because they are scared of Intel, but because you can do a whole lot more with AGP, and in order to keep up with the competition performance-wise they need to use it.
There are simply some things hardware-wise you just cannot do with PCI.
clueless... (Score:1)
In what way exactly is it less "versitile"? AGP in fact is more versitile than PCI from a technical standpoint, given its ability to make use of system DRAM more efficiently than PCI. That along with sidebanding and write-combining makes AGP much better a choice than PCI for anything (not just video cards) that has high bandwith requirements and/or memory requirements.
Speaking of 3dfx stock (Score:1)
Re:A Theory... (Score:1)
Re:A Theory... (Score:1)
A Theory... (Score:1)
Re:Finally (Score:1)
Re: clueless... (Score:1)
into an AGP port? Most SCSI devices need high bandwidth and often
have memory requirements, else you could use a cheaper PCI. So
how about an AGP to UW-SCSI adapter? Anyone?
Thats odd.. (Score:1)
Afterthough: If you don't have any nice chips to make, don't make any at all.
---------------------------
Re:Intel learning (Score:1)
Not producing != No money (Score:1)
As long as any such patents remain in their portfolio, they stand to gain revenue through licensing.
Just a little food fer thought.
Finally (Score:1)
One less chip maker to worry about hyping their chipset
Re:A Theory... (Score:1)
Andrew
p/s: This is just my opinion, and obviously does not reflect my employer's views on things.
Re:Evil legacy (Score:1)
Read the .sig (NT) (Score:1)
3dfx V3500 (Score:1)
BTW: I thought their commercials kicked ass, except for the thing that nobody can quite get right...30 second of screen shots please. I can't stand game commercials that have 2 second of actual gameply and 28 of some idiot actors doing stupid sh*t. The QuakeII commercial is a perfect example of how NOT to do one.
Matrox kicks ass (Score:1)
I saw some Xmark performace figures with the Xfree86 pre 4.0 release on a G400 a while back - around 53 Xmarks! Thats really good for a consumer card that costs less than $200.
Anyway Matrox always has had THE BEST 2D performance of any video card, and the best Xfree86 drivers.
Re:Intel couldn't compete (Score:1)
Re:Finally (Score:1)
More likely that it would be hardware incompatability, unless this particular user started stabbing a butter knife into his i740.
If you ask me, "Must be a user error..." tends to be one of those knee-jerk reactions like "Well of course it doesn't work, it's Windows!"
Not that I disagree with the latter, in most cases...
Perhaps more competition (Score:1)
The Linux Lesson (Score:1)
Yea. If only Intel hadn't fallen for all this "Open Source" Linux hooey. Suddenly, a very paranoid and market-aware company went off the deep end. If they had only stayed in a Windows-only environment where a cruddy product isn't as important as good marketing, they'd still be making graphics chips today! Damn those Linux people and their crazy talk about performance!
Re:Intel learning (Score:1)
Re:Evil legacy (Score:1)
Re:Intel couldn't compete (Score:1)
Re:Intel lost that game... (Score:1)
Re:Intel couldn't compete (Score:1)
Re:Finally - i810 (Score:1)
On the other hand, what is going on with the new Intel graphics chip they just brought out not too long ago? Are they ditching that too, including support?
Re:Finally (Score:1)
Re: clueless... (Score:1)
I wish we just had Nvidia and 3dfx (Score:1)
but we wouldnt have all these Mofos with different cards totally screwing compatibility and stuff.
:)
Re:Dont forget Matrox... (Score:1)
as for the Matrox, eh.
Too many cards, too much pain for developers, too many games programmed for the lowest common denominator.
yeah (Score:1)
yeah.
and this somehow relates to them making video chips...yeah.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WEIRDO!!!
uh huh, yeah, sure couple points here (Score:1)
2. drivers are shoddy for all cards right now due to the pace of development
3. if the core market is shit, its nice to know that some comapnies have the balls to try and make a transistion. the almighty buck is not the only thing in the universe. theres quake and sex too.
Timing (Score:1)
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990818/ca_nvidia_2.html
Ouch...
Intel should have to add "...for at least a year" (Score:1)
Re:Dont forget Matrox... (Score:1)
3dfx is dead. Everything's going the way of OpenGL and DX.
Matrox learned their lesson (Score:2)
-E
PCI is only 33Mhz (Score:2)
A year ago Linux did not support the 64-bit PCI spec even on Alphas (which did have 64-bit PCI slots even back then). But I have not checked things out lately, too many other fun things to do and I'm not in that business anymore.
-E
Re:Speaking of 3dfx stock (Score:2)