Over the past few years, there have been persistent rumours that NVIDIA, the graphics chip maker, was working on an x86 chip to compete with Intel and AMD. Recently, these rumours gained some traction, but NVIDIA's CEO just shot them down, and denied the company will enter the x86 processor market.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-07
The first time you see and AMD or Intel CPU with integrated graphics beat the pants off of an add-in card, I'd bet you'll be convinced.
If not, you are probably a member of a very tiny minority (and shrinking) of the enthusiast market that still upgrades your computer part by part over time.
I used to be that guy, but gave it up a while ago, because of the staggering pace of new tech. And the fact that if you time your upgrades to about a year and a half or so after the consoles refresh, you don't really need to stay on the treadmill. ;-)
Member since:2006-12-05
Only under very specific circumstances. And I can't see this happening for a hell of a long time. As integrated graphics are now, they're still too weak... but the biggest problem is that I'm just not a fan of the whole "shared system memory" thing as I said. Plus we're only at dual-cores so far, and that's not near enough for me to start embracing onboard components. [Don't bother mentioning quad-core... yes, I know they're out, but those are still priced high last I checked.]
Somewhat, but not quite. I just believe in the philosophy of a hardware component being designed to do one thing well, and other components (with their own dedicated memory and onboard processors) to do their own specific tasks well, offloading the extra burden on each other. Maybe eight cores will solve this (maybe...), but at the same time I expect operating systems and software in general to start making better use of multiple cores as well, which will--again--make it better to have separate, distinct, specialized processors for video and audio processing.
As it is, I will probably hold this opinion for several years to come. Having the absolute most powerful GPU is not my focus; at least not any more. I realized raw graphical power was a pointless waste of money years ago, and instead go for something that has plenty of power for what I need, and then some (but not quite top-of-the-line). My focus is getting the best use out of my processing power... which means not offloading everything under the sun onto the CPU, so that I can have it actually process what I want: the programs. I don't want graphics and audio to get in the way of that.
Member since:2006-07-26
When it comes to dedicated graphics, I've favored nVidia for quite a while. OTOH, I opted to go with integrated graphics with my last laptop. The reason is that the integrated card is better than my old dedicated card from 4-5 years prior, and can do anything but gaming. My priorities have also changed over time, since I now rarely play new games, and prefer open source drivers and better battery life. For me, a discrete graphics card was actually undesirable, although my reasoning only really applies to laptops.
That said, I think nVidia has some potential in the x86 market for gamers. With most games, there is no benefit for having a CPU beyond the recommended specification, but the visual experience scales up almost linearly with graphics card power. So I see a market for PCs built completely around graphics performance, with the CPU being basically an afterthought. Kinda the opposite of having a fast CPU and integrated graphics, which is better/cheaper for general computing.
Member since:2006-03-16
You're one person indeed. But 95% of the market will do with anything that's cheap and that works. You just gave the best examples yourself: sound (and you can add LAN, IDE/SATA/USB/other-ports controllers etc). There isn't a need for dedicated HW expansion cards for 98% of the people. It's way cheaper with those integrated functionalities, consumes much less space/power than an expansion card and most importantly, it just works.
Currently NVidia is at the enthusiastics/specialized markets only, and almost by definition, it's a relatively small share of the market. Integrated HW sells to the vast majority of the market.
As a relative expert, gamer and developer myself, I can say that I'm quite happy with all my recent systems which had everything integrated less the GPU. Had there been a decent integrated GPU, I'd have probably bought it instead. It's cheaper and it works.
So integrated GPU has a huge current and potential market IMO. Possibly less profitable per system, but overall presents a very good growth opportunity for a company like NVidia. I wouldn't just dump the concept or potential market because some experts prefer discrete HW.
Member since:2005-12-15
I think the trend is reversing for nvidia. Previously (currently) having an add-in card is a requirement for decent gaming performance, but going forward, once the shift to massive numbers of cores happens, having it all on the same chip will make more and more sense.
The add-in card I think will be just for the hard(er)core gamers.
Member since:
2006-12-05
I don't know... I'm not really a fan of onboard-anything. I'd rather get specialized, replaceable PCI cards for added functionality than put yet *another* task on the CPU and eat into my main memory. I'm more into a piece of hardware doing one thing, not being weighed down by unnecessary burdens. Not to mention that I always liked nVidia products, and their drivers were always excellent (though it would be nice if they were open source for Linux and the BSDs).
And yes, I realize I'm just one person... but I'm one person who would not hesitate to get an nVidia GPU in my next machine (along with dedicated sound, ethernet, wi-fi, etc. cards) instead of going with the default Intel integrated video. I've done it before, I'll do it again.