Basically, NVidia is the bar. Ambitious to me implies at least challenging NVidia. AMD makes competitive GPUs in certain arenas (and for Linux is the main choice due to drivers), but for me no definition of "ambitious" involves even thinking about AMD.
Well, 4k 120 from an iGPU ... you're saying THAT is ambitious? There's the bar!
Historically Intel has about every 5 years started to rumble about getting serious in the discrete markets, and they make some marketing fluff, but nothing even remotely competitive outside the iGPU "meh" range ever comes out.
So if I hear Intel being "ambitious" and then read an article that basically pretends (I'm not accusing you of anything) NVidia doesn't exist, well, seems like a failed premise to me.
I'm pretty negative on Intel over the last decade, you'd think I was a spurned contractor (I'm not, never worked there). Intel is definitely in the "prove it" mode. They've so massively failed/squandered opportunity at smartphone chips, SSDs, memory, graphics, and then finally screwed the pooch in process tech and CPUs. So clearly an engineering company that was hijacked by finance MBAs are driven into the ground, and it is HARD for companies to come back from that poison, especially when they had about 30 years of near-unchallenged monopoly dominance in the marketplace.
I didn't want to imply "author sux Lol" the article was pretty in-depth and information depth, but it remains the basic premise is flawed, because the source marketing/press release by Intel is about an 80% chance of being BS or "same story, different half decade".
4K 120..."There's the bar!" - By ambitious I meant Intel's serious about getting competitive gaming performance in the handheld or thin/light laptop category. MTL's iGPU is ambitious compared to older standard Intel iGPUs like the HD 530.
"Nvidia doesn't exist" They don't exist in the iGPU market, unless you count the Nintendo Switch. The Switch doesn't run the same games that Meteor Lake and Phoenix do, and therefore I don't think it's an interesting comparison. But I do have data at https://chipsandcheese.com/2023/12/23/nintendo-switchs-igpu-... if you want to factor in Nvidia. Same with Nvidia's discrete cards or AMD's desktop RDNA 3 variant (with the larger 192 KB vector register file). Neither of those can fit in the same form factors and power envelopes that Meteor Lake and Phoenix compete in.
What Intel source marketing/press release stuff did you take issue with? I'll be honest, I didn't go over their Meteor Lake marketing/press release materials in detail. But if they did claim something crazy and didn't deliver, I can understand the disappointment.
> The integrated segment had a total of 48.82 million units shipped worldwide followed by the high-end GPU segment which saw 6.84 million GPU shipments, 2.59 million shipments in the mid-range category, and 1.81 million in the entry-level segment. Workstation GPUs also shipped 1.50 million units.
Integrated graphics may not have the profit margins of dedicated, but in sheer quantity, they dwarf add-in boards.
But how many of those 48.82 units are actually used in any meaningful capacity?
Intel is spending a great deal of money manufacturing stuff that’s then utterly wasted on any system with dedicated GPU’s or more commonly never use more than a small fraction of that 3D capacity. It just seems like a multi billion dollar waste from a company that’s so used to being a near monopoly it can’t step back from the iGPU trap.
>Historically Intel has about every 5 years started to rumble about getting serious in the discrete markets, and they make some marketing fluff, but nothing even remotely competitive outside the iGPU "meh" range ever comes out.
I think the key thing you may be missing here is Intel Arc which is Intel's first real dGPU. And now they are using that tech in their iGPUs.
Well, 4k 120 from an iGPU ... you're saying THAT is ambitious? There's the bar!
Historically Intel has about every 5 years started to rumble about getting serious in the discrete markets, and they make some marketing fluff, but nothing even remotely competitive outside the iGPU "meh" range ever comes out.
So if I hear Intel being "ambitious" and then read an article that basically pretends (I'm not accusing you of anything) NVidia doesn't exist, well, seems like a failed premise to me.
I'm pretty negative on Intel over the last decade, you'd think I was a spurned contractor (I'm not, never worked there). Intel is definitely in the "prove it" mode. They've so massively failed/squandered opportunity at smartphone chips, SSDs, memory, graphics, and then finally screwed the pooch in process tech and CPUs. So clearly an engineering company that was hijacked by finance MBAs are driven into the ground, and it is HARD for companies to come back from that poison, especially when they had about 30 years of near-unchallenged monopoly dominance in the marketplace.
I didn't want to imply "author sux Lol" the article was pretty in-depth and information depth, but it remains the basic premise is flawed, because the source marketing/press release by Intel is about an 80% chance of being BS or "same story, different half decade".