1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

Intel is acting like it cares more about GPUs than CPUs, and that's a good thing

By mongeese · 39 replies
Jan 19, 2019
Post New Reply
  1. Key to any product’s success is a strong platform and network. Ryzen, for example, not only introduced high core counts but also faster memory support, ECC memory support, backward compatibility with motherboards and usable box coolers. Intel didn’t seem to get the memo on the CPU side, but their graphics team was taking notes.

    As PC Gamer noted recently, Intel’s decision to rebuild its graphics control panel from the ground up demonstrates the focus they’re putting on graphics. As you can see from their video in the tweet below, it’s not a casual update but a serious upgrade.

    “Optimizing graphics for your games is essential, but control panels can be confusing,” Intel says. Speaking of confusing control panels, take a look at Intel’s Xtreme Tuning Utility for CPU controls. It’s out of date and way behind AMD’s Ryzen Master software, so why aren’t they updating that?

    Even though drivers for integrated graphics are generally less essential than for discrete cards, Intel has matched Nvidia on the support front, too. Since the release of the RTX series, there have been six driver updates for both the RTX cards and Intel’s iGPUs.

    When the Windows October Update launched, Intel had updated graphics drivers ready before Nvidia or AMD. Their last update for the CPU lineup, the Turbo Boost Max 3.0 update, came back in July while their iGPUs have already received two updates this year.

    Intel also has plans to introduce adaptive sync to their integrated and discrete GPUs and are calling it a “priority.” While Nvidia only recently opened up to support FreeSync monitors, Intel is actually willing to go a step further. When a fan asked Intel, AMD, and Nvidia if they’d consider a joint adaptive sync certification program only Intel responded, and they called it a “great idea.”

    Of all three manufacturers, Intel has the best setting recommendation program. The Gameplay Portal lets users search by either processor or game, and once both are determined, it spits out a screenshot of the in-game settings that the processor can run at 60 fps (or as close as it can get).

    The solution isn’t as flexible as Nvidia’s Game Optimization program, which can theoretically let players adjust between performance and quality and consider other system specs. However, Nvidia’s solution has a terrible reputation for being completely wrong and full of glitches.

    The elephant in the room is, of course, only a small portion of gamers rely on iGPUs, and most of what Intel is doing is overkill. Even with Intel’s plans to break the Teraflop barrier and double the performance of their iGPUs with the next generation, all their game-oriented services are still niche.

    Casual Fortnite or Overwatch gamers who play on their iGPUs probably haven’t noticed all the little things Intel has been doing. For Intel, though, that’s okay, because they’re not doing it for them. They’re doing it for hardcore enthusiasts that purchase their discrete GPU next year, which, if it receives as much focus as their iGPUs as of late, could be a real hit.

    Permalink to story.

     
  2. petert

    petert TS Evangelist Posts: 349   +150

    Intel gpu is an abomination imposed upon their customers ...
     
    Wessell Urdata, meric and pencea like this.
  3. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 11,208   +4,876

    No they are not. They are a bare minimum for those that do not need dedicated graphics. It may be hard for you to believe but that is a majority.
     
    rpjkw11, seeprime, IceIceAyu and 7 others like this.
  4. noel24

    noel24 TS Evangelist Posts: 495   +426

    I would say They run out of the ideas how to improve CPU so They move to impove AMD GPU that They stole recently, with Lake-G and AMD personel purchase. Still, it will take them at least two years to reach middle range. I own i5-4690k@4.2 with GTX 970 and personally have high hopes for next generation, 7nm Ryzen and Navi, all within $1K (including MOBO and 16GB of RAM).
     
    dj2017 likes this.
  5. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 11,208   +4,876

    Unless there is an AMD patent being infringed on, nothing was stolen.
     
    btfsttg likes this.
  6. vayeate

    vayeate TS Rookie

    "and that's a good thing" lol
     
  7. noel24

    noel24 TS Evangelist Posts: 495   +426

    Yeah, sure, wateve U say... Just repeat it to Yourself when You laydown Yourself to sleep.
    Know-How is the the best patent of them all, and paradoxically, is not covered by patent law.
     
  8. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 11,208   +4,876

    It's nice to know, you think all your knowledge was stolen. Just don't think I'm going to pay you royalties for learning that.
     
    captaincranky likes this.
  9. noel24

    noel24 TS Evangelist Posts: 495   +426

    Oh, It's free.
    I'm excited about competition in a field of product I'm about to buy as much as anyone else would be.
     
  10. petert

    petert TS Evangelist Posts: 349   +150

    There were motherboards with integrated graphics way before intel joined the show with an inferior solution tbh. So not exactly required or requested by the market, they consistently underperformed when compared with integrated solutions from nvidia or ati.
     
    JaredTheDragon, mosu and meric like this.
  11. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 11,208   +4,876

    You can't say Intel's IGP wasn't asked for, when you look at market shares. If people wanted ATI or nVidia, I'm sure they would have bought in that direction.
     
  12. yRaz

    yRaz Nigerian Prince Posts: 2,757   +1,980

    To be fair, I use Intel integrated graphics daily for productivity purposes and it cant run more than 1440x900 on one monitor and I use more than one 1080p monitors frequently
     
  13. amghwk

    amghwk TS Guru Posts: 459   +278

    I have a few systems and in some, I don't mind the integrated core i7 graphic solution which is powerful enough for my needs, including playing older Windows classics - Quake III, Half-Life, etc.. and emulating PlayStation 1 games comfortably well.
     
    IceIceAyu and Digitalzone like this.
  14. Theinsanegamer

    Theinsanegamer TS Evangelist Posts: 1,480   +1,673

    "and thats a good thing"

    What is this, Buzzfeed? Intel abandoning their core market is NOT a good thing. If they stop competing on the CPU front, focusing on mediocre GPUs, that gives AMD a captive market, and we all know where that leads.

    We need MORE competition, not less, and somehow I dont feel intel's 3rd attempt at standalone GPUs is going to work out any better then previous entries, especially if their CPUs continue to stagnate and result in falling sales.
     
    JaredTheDragon and btfsttg like this.
  15. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 11,208   +4,876

    You might want to up that value a bit. I know Intel Sandy Bridge (i3-2100&i5-2400) has no issues running 1080.
    https://software.intel.com/en-us/ar...ion-intel-core-processor-graphics-hd-graphics

    If you think your option within Windows is the limiting factor. It is not. Those options max depending on the monitor in use. Where the cap is usually set by the native resolution of the monitor.

    And if you are using 15 year old technology. It wouldn't be fair to place today's demand on that tech. Think back at what the demand on resolution was 15 years ago.
     
    IceIceAyu and Digitalzone like this.
  16. Pinkie Pie

    Pinkie Pie TS Booster Posts: 79   +41

    Is this really Intel's first discrete GPU? What about the i740 based Real3D Starfighter.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2019
    DarkAgeCamelot likes this.
  17. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 11,208   +4,876

    First time caring for GPUs or first time caring less for CPUs?
     
  18. Raytrace3D

    Raytrace3D TS Booster Posts: 89   +85

    Intel iGPU's are the ATI Rage Pro of the server market back in the day. :)
     
  19. ypsylon

    ypsylon TS Booster Posts: 151   +39

    Just to correct two things.

    1. Ryzen didn't introduced support for faster memory modules. If anything 1st Ryzen & 1st Threadrippers are notorious for memory instability and lack of support beyond 3000 or 3200 board vary - and I can testify to that with first hand experience. Furthermore on AMD platform you benefit more from lower latency sets (like 14CL 3200) than faster memory (like recently showcased by G.Skill 3466 with abominable CL of 18). On Intel from Skylake up you just plug some outrageous kit of 4000 or 4666 or something and it works, not on AMD by a long shot. What AMD introduced is more memory bandwidth available, but that's territory for seriously Pro workflow not for gaming or even doing YT videos. I bet services like particle physics got great boosts with Ryzen/Threadripper 2.

    2. While Ryzen did good. AMD made an error many years ago when they dropped 3DNow! support. Yeah it's only old games, but try to play a game which require it and say that Ryzen is good. AMD hasn't resolved the issue with 3DNow! support. Technically they put instruction call to MMX which is in same address space, but games don't support that to well or at all. Game calls for 3DNow (detected AMD CPU after all) and AMD CPU says... 'oh bollocks I don't have that'. And you get nice black screen or inverted negative textures or any other "charming" effects.

    So let's not get ahead ourselves. AMD is not perfect, just like Intel.


    For an Intel GPU I'm intrigued to say the least. Freesync support is another really interesting move, considering Intel only creates its own closed standards not supports an Open option. IMHO Intel cannot approach this from position of strength (probably first time in history) and bully competition into submission while keeping outrageous pricing. I wish them well, but like article said. Gamers care nothing for second best. They maybe will never own some super-duper card in her/his lifetime, but specs and performance is what matters.
     
  20. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 3,442   +1,209

    So what happens if the said game detects an Intel CPU and doesn't call for 3DNow? Surely modern AMD CPU's are seen the same way? Games goes to the CPU "Do you support 3DNow?" and CPU says yes or no? At least, the Wiki makes it sound like that. AMD created it purely because it's CPU's at the time couldn't compete with Intels Floating-Point performance back in 1998...
     
  21. BSim500

    BSim500 TS Evangelist Posts: 586   +1,155

    Indeed there were few (if any) 3DNow exclusives games as in "won't run without it" and most had a fallback code path. The obvious proof of this is the fact many 3DNow supported games from this list (Anachronox, Baldur's Gate 2, Daikatana, Deus Ex, Empire Earth, Giants Citizens Kabuto, Outlaws, Quake 2-3, Rune, SiN, Unreal, UT (2000), Vampire: The Masquerade, etc) are being sold on GOG and work just fine on modern Intel & Ryzen CPU's. This isn't something newly changed either as I still have the old retail discs to 5x of those games, and they also work fine on modern CPU's with no 3DNow.

    As for Intel's entry into dGPU's, more competition is always welcome but half the reason we only have two competitors now is the high barrier to entry that's just as much software than hardware. ie, the reason nVidia & "ATI" drivers are so big is that they contain fixes, tweaks, shader replacements, etc, for literally hundreds / thousands of games stretching back many years. Anyone starting new won't have these (ie, equivalents of nVidia Profile Inspector's database), and their dGPU's may well have a lot more compatibility problems with older games. As someone who loves playing a wide mix of old / new games, that could mean the decision to buy or not would rest on a lot more than the usual "Tech Site Tunnel Vision" benchmarking of just the same 12x brand-new games, and older game compatibility vs Intel dGPU drivers is certainly something I'd like to see tested in depth.
     
    DarkAgeCamelot likes this.
  22. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 14,593   +3,760

    Well my Prince I don't know about the only runs 1440 x 900 being accurate. The machine I bask in your omnipotent glory with, is a 1080p in portrait mode. It's a Wolfdale / G-41 dual core Pentium.

    I've had however, my i3-3225 throw up warnings about limiting the resolution of a 2nd monitor to something like 1368 x 720 (?).

    I did have a problem with it (G-41) black screening with too many tabs open, particularly video tabs. It's Win 7 32 bit. So, I put the full 4 GB of RAM in it, switched to Opera from Firefox, and the problem for all but the most heinous tab overloads, went away.

    (The "later" Intel IGP such as this one, don't really limit the amount of RAM the IGP can appropriate. So, when there's too much memory in use with applications, my guess is the video RAM demand crashes into the program usage and crashes. I think with the really old boards like the 915G series video memory was cut off at 250 MB).

    In fairness, with the monitor in portrait mode, max video resolution would be 1080 x 607. Keep in mind though, this machine is an ancient relic.

    I should probably change the CMOS battery though, the 9 YO little turd doesn't seem to want to keep correct time.

    EDIT: I did put discreet cards in my 3 Win 7 64 bit machines, so that I could run 2K monitors, (i3-3225 = 750 ti) ( i5-6600K - 1050 ti) Last and certainly least, the i3-530 "Clarkdale" got a GT-1030. Sure, the other kidz here still make fun of me for that weak a** poop, but not as bad as they used to. (y) (Y)
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2019
  23. dj2017

    dj2017 TS Addict Posts: 150   +142

    Someone is overexcited with the idea of an Intel GPU that is not a joke.

    I only read half of the article, sorry, but talking about the control panel, having NOT seen the control panel and counting number of driver releases, without comparing the number of changes between Intel updates and Nvidia updates is at least biased. Not to mention that, at least in the first half of the article, it is pointed out that Intel rushed to be the first to publish drivers for the October update, but not mentioned that Intel problematic display drivers where also one of the reasons that Microsoft had to halt the update.

    I love to read articles that are ARTICLES. Articles that look like long forum posts, not so much.
     
  24. pcnthuziast

    pcnthuziast TS Evangelist Posts: 513   +136

    Sounds like they hit a wall with cpu progression and are floundering tbh. This is a terrible announcement and Intel is NOT and imho will never be a player in the gfx market. Their business practices are almost as shady and unethical as Nvidia.
     
  25. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 14,593   +3,760

    Well, you know what I always say, "life sucks and then you can't buy a 1080 ti for $99.95".

    Although in all honesty, I think that M$ has pretty much cornered and won the market on shady business practices with the introduction of Windows 10. Or as I like to call it, "Windows, now available in suppository". (y) (Y) < (No turn your head and cough)..:eek:
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2019
    Cycloid Torus likes this.

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...