Having a Gelsinger Intel? Intel started this foolishness by announcing the gpu dead. Of course everyone else points at nVidias response, but how bout this response? http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37611/140/ The position Intel has taken is foolish. They expound about the gpu being dead, yet here (my link) we see the cpu getting trounced. And this is only the beginning. Also, Intel claims the gpu is dead, and goes on to make what? Gpus!!! Stop with the foolish comments Intel. A lot of us arent buying it. And who knows? Maybe someday, theyll actually put a cpu on a gpu. My point is, anyone that accepts this statement by Intel, then goes on about nVidias response had better rethink their opinoin. Gelsinger said after all these years the way we see 3d is obsolete, others are saying/using new ways to use those obsolete gpus, and creaming quads in the process. Like Rob Enderle said, Intel is missing the mark on this one, and they should know better

They aren't makeing a GPU they are makeing a co processor if it turns out to handle GPU style code well then so be it.

They aren't makeing a GPU they are makeing a co processor if it turns out to handle GPU style code well then so be it.

Intel says a hybrid approach is wrong. nVidia says its the way to go. We will see http://www.techpowerup.com/60926/N [...] tware.html Like Ive stated, Intel took the wrong approach, and is going to try to force feed their way of doing things. In the mean time, theres apps out there thatre going to the hybrid approach, and winning from it. Enderle is right. Intel is missing the mark. More and more, we are going to see this happening. And when does Larrabee come out? Too little too late to make the impact Intel wants to make. If they want to truly make a competing gpu, then fine. But all this garbage about current gpu ways as being dead has to go. One needs the other, as stated by Jen-Hsun, not one is dead, long live the cpu, as Intel has said

There's no big deal: Intel is simply doing its homework. What could we expect from the biggest CPU maker? It sounds like vaporware: "Oh! look at how fantastic our next product's features are going to be! Everything else will be obsolete by the time it launches...". Probably, I would do the same - just as anybody else who wants to introduce something new in the market. There's no reason to flame Intel right now. They have some of the best engineers, so, let them give it a try. If it turns out to be the wrong approach there will be thousands of others (huh, probably just 2, in this case). But what about Nvidia? "The CPU doesn't need to become any faster"? Oh, p-l-e-a-s-e. Right. That's why you need a 2.6 - 3.0 Ghz Core 2 CPU to fully utilize your GeForce, right? I want to see Huang's face if Nehalem gives an astonishing boost to his cards and SLI (ah, erh... sorry. Just Crossfire for Nehalem). Maybe the 9 series are being ultra-bottlenecked by current CPUs and they weren't just a gimmick!!! Tell me an application that really benefits from the GPU, except games and video-related ones. Well, the next Photoshop. How many people have a discrete graphics card in their rigs, let alone a reasonable one? Even if things like CUDA ever take off what will be the benefit to Joe Average? Will he spend $100+ for it? The difference is that the CPU can speed "everything" and that's what everyone (almost) looks at:

Joe A. : "How many Gigahurtz/Cores does this computer have?"
Geek Squad attendant: "Well, it has four cores, you know."
Joe A. : "Four??! GEEZ! MY WINDOWS WILL BOOT INSTANTLY!!! FINALLY!"
Geek Squad attendant: "ACTUALLY, you can buy this nice GFX card, since many applications are optimized to work faster with it."
Joe A. : "Does it have FOUR cores?! Well, I don't need to play my movies any faster... I will miss the better scenes!"
Geek Squad attendant: "well.... I was talking about the whole computer being faster..."
Joe A. : "You really want my money, heh? O-K, smart-ass! So, the next thing you're going to tell me is to buy a sound-card, so that EXCEL will run faster, right?"
Geek Squad attendant: "... let's talk about that quad-core again."


Well, I don't mind having a 9800GX2 if I can't run even Windows XP without waiting 5 minutes until it becomes responsive. Nvidia says that a "hybrid approach" is the way to go because it is the *ONLY* way they can go. Besides, it's not a fight like "David vs Goliath" - it's more like "God vs Ant". If Intel loses the first round: give it a rest, some millions and let's go to round 2. If Nvidia loses the first round: investors crying desperately while buying Intel shares, "WTF! GRAPHICS CARDS ARE DEAD!!!...", panicking. Nvidia can become the next AMD if it fails by the time Larrabee launches: Intel will simply have another chance.

Nvidia is not the little-good-hearted boy vs the monopolist giant - just as Intel isn't the godsend who wants to make the world a better place. Both of them think with their wallets and their marketshare graphs. Should we care about who will win?

This has been going on for a while JayD. In fact I think it started when NVidia decided not to license SLI to Intel for their chipsets. It was in a way selfish if NVidia.

After that both sides started to trach talk each other. Intel demoed the abilities of Nehalem to run a game and physics with no problem and then NVidia had to go and show how well a GPU ran the game better than Intel.

Its going to be interesting to see what happens. And yes Larrabee may seem like a GPU but its not. Its a x86 CPU that is designed to run GPU style code.

Thing I find interesting is how NVidia thinks GPUs with hyprid programing run apps better but we have yet to see a CPU that was changed over to just run GPU based code. I wounder if a CPU that was made only to run GPU code @ 3GHz would be nice.

Anywho. You are right in the end. They both need eachother. Neither will die unless one comes up with a killer architecture that will do both and blow everything to hades.

Like F@H, like photoshop and therell be othersThis is just the beginning, like I said. These arent something to be, these are here. And they stomp cpus. And what about usb3? Will everyone have to pay for that? I cant say whether it was right or wrong for nVidia to charge for their SLI, but I can say its wrong to turn around and then charge for usb3, and claim nVidia is wrong.

Theyre steppin up with the 4xxx series.

SLI works on Intel chipsets its a driver tag that disables the feature if it doesn't detect a Nvidia based chipset. I have always been a diehard Nvidia fan but look what happened to AMD when they opened their mouth does Nvidia really think it will not suffer when the sleeping giant awakes again?

Word, Playa.

Thats the problem. Intel is the fearful darling here. But so is nVidia concerning graphics. Notice what Intels best does? SkullTrail? Whys that? Hmmmmmm. This is going to get interesting. Jen-Hsen is no joke. He isnt like Otellini, he made this company, drives it. Hes not a Hector either. I see more and more apps going gpgpu driven. By the time Larrabee does come, itll have to fight that as well, besides whatever nVidias going to do with their raytracing, and implementations from that as well. Intel hasnt had to face a company as inventive, single mindedness and compelling as nVidia. They have influence. You cant say that about ATI or AMD. They never did. nVidia does, just like Intel does. Sure theyre huge, but theyre also going against something theyve never seen before, or had to tackle, so this is going to get very interesting

^Well said!

I agree. I think nVidia deserves to get paid for SLI but they were the ones who wanted to keep it to themselves to get more money in chipset sales. And the thing is that Intesl chipsets normally give better bandwidth to memory and are also the best for OCing. Not to say nVidias are useless but they only offer SLI and thats the only real benefit. I think thats what stirred Intel. I mean even AMD decided to let Intel have Crossfire b/c they knew getting some money was better than getting none, especially since Core2 is the best.

Um USB 3.0 is supposed to be 4.8Gbits/s (600MB/s) compared to USB 2.0 @ 480Mbits/s (60MB/s) so 10x the bandwidth. So I think it will be much faster than you think.

I agree with what you say to nVidia. They are really cutting themselves short there. I have seen quite a few who wanted SLI but decided to get just one nVidia GPU or went with a 3870X2/ CF 3870s so they could have a Intel chipset to OC easier and better with.

AMD/ATI, its all in the management. The aquisition of ATI caused some stirring in the R600 that caused it to underperform from what it should have.

From what we have seen so far yes. I for one hope so. I am sick of seeing nVidias top GPU over the $500 dollar mark keeping people from top teir performance cuz they can't afford to pay too much. If its true a single HD4870 can out pace a 9800GX2 and HD3870X2 easily but I will reserve judgement until that comes out.

Well Intel already has a head start on raytracing as they bought a company a while ago and have been working on it for a while. So even with what nVidia plans they may be the ones having to fight back against Intel with that aspect. I understand nVidia but I feel like they are getting way in over their head by trying to push into a CPU style area. I doubt we will ever have it set up where we have 3 GPUs, one for CPU and 2 for graphics. I mean unless nVidia has a way to force multiple instructions through a GPU without problems.

I hope this doesn't have adverse effects on us consumers. I personally like it the way it is. 2 CPU companies and 2 GPU companies. Easy to choose from.

I hope NV can get an X86 license ...

If AMD can stay afloat long enough and push their platform approach as good value for money - mobo, chipset, cpu, gpu - and get a bit more market share ... even up the balance.

At present Intel has crushed every other player in the market and finally NV has woken up to realise they are next for the chopping block.

Intel wants everything.

Intel is Skynet.

Sickum Sarah.