Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 11th May 2007 18:17 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Intel "The Intel 965GM Express Chipset represents the first mobile product that implements fourth generation Intel graphics architecture. Designed to support advanced rendering features in modern graphics APIs, this chipset includes support for programmable vertex, geometry, and fragment shaders. Extending Intel's commitment to work with the and Mesa communities to continuously improve and enhance the drivers, support for this new chipset is provided through the 2.0 Intel driver and the Mesa 6.5.3 releases. These drivers represent significant work by both Intel and the broader open source community."
Thread beginning with comment 239446
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
After being a long time supported of AMD
by Maners on Fri 11th May 2007 18:54 UTC
Member since:

I think that my attitude is going to change. Although I consider Intel as an monopolist, their support for FLOSS seems to be a few orders greater than AMD's. After AMD/Ati merger they have promised to open up their drivers, yet they didn't even get their binary drivers right until today. In contrast, Intel provides decent support for their wireless drivers, video chip sets etc and they do it almost on par with Windows equivalents in both quality and time.

Reply Score: 5

cromo Member since:

AMD/ATI have never promised to open up their drivers.

Reply Parent Score: 3

butters Member since:

Intel has had some business practices in the past that arguably constitute predatory pricing. But this is not the reason why they outperform AMD through most of each product generation. Intel is 6-12 months ahead of any other vendor in semiconductor fabrication. It took an ill-conceived processor architecture to allow AMD to have a window of sustained performance advantage, during which time they were unable to capitalize on demand due to limited production capacity.

I've wanted AMD to succeed for some time, but their long-term prospects don't look so hot. They currently enjoy a bandwidth advantage in the multi-socket market, but that won't last through 2008 as Intel moves to a serialized bus architecture and an on-die memory controller. They're ramping up production capacity for 2008/9, but they needed this badly in 2004. If AMD continues to take a beating in performance per watt, they run the risk of having excess capacity burning a hole in their pocket.

AMD is failing to execute in spectacular fashion in the graphics space, with the ATi acquisition causing a hiccup in the release cadence that this market doesn't tolerate. Where's the DirectX 10 part? With lack of competition comes lack of pricing pressures, which nVidia is using to redefine the price point for high-end graphics. If AMD was doing their part, we wouldn't have $850 graphics cards today. If this continues, the lucky few will be getting $1000 GeForce cards for Christmas.

Intel can compete with nVidia--eventually. That's more than I can say about AMD going forward. They have discrete graphics in the works, and they have the industry clout to make the form factor adjustments necessary to account for GPUs with power envelopes that dwarf those of CPUs. They also have the process technology to do something about runaway GPU thermals.

Finally, Intel is going to leverage OSS as they take on the midrange and high-end of the graphics market. It's public knowledge that these GPUs are glorified stream processors with a few special-purpose hardware accelerators and highly evolved drivers. Letting the OSS community participate in the development of these drivers will bear fruit for Intel. With an OSS starting point from Intel and full hardware specs, we can make better drivers than nVidia or AMD and establish leadership in the graphics market.

Reply Parent Score: 5

PlatformAgnostic Member since:

What makes you think that OSS people have any idea what to do with a stream processor or how to write a graphics driver? The kinds of people who are really good at this stuff are few and far between. And I'm willing to bet that they want the big bucks.

The high end gaming graphics market that's out there grew up around a highly proprietary synergy between Microsoft and NVidia/ATI. OpenGL was not going anywhere in the 3D gaming market until after DirectX had been established. 3dfx was the exception, and it seems like they did a lot to get OGL working on hardware.

OSS seems to be a means for corporate success only when one is selling hardware. Otherwise, open-sourcing the software is just a tool for companies that are going out of business or simply can't compete to sell their software. The linux kernel is a big exception to this, but I'm not so sure it's doing a great job when it comes to things that require more centralized design and careful planning such as suspend/resume.

Reply Parent Score: 2