NVIDIA continues to hate on Intel, promises sub-$45 integrated chipset
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted April 11th 2008 11:47AM
posted April 11th 2008 11:47AM
posted April 11th 2008 11:47AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Kefka?
Is there going to be a DVI/HDMI model? For people who want to use a 1080p LCD HDTV as their monitor, it makes the picture better. Once you use a 37" LCD or larger screen as your monitor, it is tough to go back to a 9" - 17" LCD. But it is much easier carrying around the smaller screen.
You can most likely get DVI/HDMI through the headers on the board + adaptor.
nvidia already has cheap integrated graphics that are much better then GMA950...
geforce 6100..
geforce 7050 ( i think..)
they have good performances for the price! very good ones...
but i dont know if these ones got into laptops and such or only desktop
Thats it, no more. Time to stop buying anything computer related. LOL
In Soviet Russia, integrated chipset is you.
Don't you mean
"In Soviet Russia, chipset intigrates you?"
Bugs to Elmer: Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home?
Daffy: Shoot him now shoot him now.
Bugs: You keep out of this, He doesn't have to shoot you now.
Daffy: I say he does too have to shoot me now.. so Shoot me now!
Bang!
Sure, 36 GFLOPS is great, but what if that will be really usable? I know a great chunk will not be x86!!
Who's going to make all the software to program those "+8" cores to do something other than draw polygons and encode/decode video?
What the hell are you talking about? The isaiah is a x86 cpu...
I was referenceing the "+8" cores on the chipset, which must contribute a great deal of that 36GFLOP. I know the Isaiah is x86, but the 8 cores on the chipset are not.
Please understand the post before questioning it's validity.
The 36GFPS is mostly coming from the graphics processor, which is completely plausible.
CPU's don't offer that much in terms of GFPS, but graphics processors are monsters in that arena.
Damn, almost had me excited until they mentioned the "ISAIAH" CPU... That's kinda like Isaiah Thomas of the CPUs, ain't it?
Ah well... Still 36 GFLOPS for $45... (or 36 Beeeleeeon floating point ops). As a reference:
http://www.top500.org/2007_overview_recent_supercomputers/cray_inc_xmt
A Cray XT4 Cabinet does 36 GFLOPS.
If hating on Intel nets me a supercomputer like processing ability for pocket change, then I'm all for hate. Turn to the dark side!
I can do 36 B-FLOPS.. But I'm not sure how the out come with assist me in accomplishment.....
I am interested to see if it lives up to everything it promises. It looks pretty promising.
If intel comes up and offers 50% of the performance of a standalone GPU in the first few years it's more as an accomplishment, looking at how the CPU will probably cost pretty much less as the overpriced standalone GPU cards that we are fed since the last 10 years.
Heck a top of the line GFX card can cost you more as the rest of the system together which is laughable to say the least.
Nvidia is an expert at making graphics cards. There is absolutely no reason to believe Intel being the only one to offer a decent integrated solution. Nvidia and ATi will be right there with them. The real question is how good they are at the high end of the spectrum, and there is no evidence of them being any good at all (they failed miserably at making discrete graphics cards). High end graphics chips trickle their way down to the affordable models. Remember that.
And 600 dollar graphics cards do NOT go into 600 dollar PC's. In fact, with Extreme CPU's at the 1200 - 1600 dollar range, and high end MB's at the 300+ range, they are pretty much on par with alot of high end components that make their way into PC's.
Lets not forget DDR3 which is asking a 200-300 dollar premium over DDR2 (which can go for 30 bucks).
If you want to be a serious gamer, you need to have pretty much a top of the line GPU to experience what games have to offer, and for that you really don't need CPUs in the $1000 price range, but a $200-300 CPU will do just great and wont bottleneck any GPU.
Joke's on them if they go with VIA.
Intel's new G35 series of integrated graphics is still poo for gaming, but it is DX10 and does HDDVD/BluRay just fine.
I have a little asus board with HDMI and intel integrated and a Core 2 E8200 and it's outstanding for everything but gaming.
Competition like this is great for consumers. Myself, I do have a media center pc, but I'm not a PC gamer. B+ Graphics built in to the board would be awesome for me (and 97% of the public). I'm more concerned with keeping a computer cool, quiet and use low power.
I think we should just go back to the days of Math Co-processors! Yeah baby yeah!
On the real though it seems like having the cpu and gpu integrated into the same chip is an awesome idea. This would me faster communication between the two entities. The only thing i'm not looking forward to the heat issues that will surely arise!
I hope the don't do a k10 on intel and make intel get angry, cuz amd knows that you wont like when intel gets angry.
*intel rips off shirt becomes green makes conroe*
To Nvidia: Get that chipset in my Eee!!!
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease ! :)
I know competition is good... but damn do I wish one day for the Atom to make its way onto the Geforce chipset.... The holy fusion of smaller and smaller technology.
PS. Cloudbook too, please. ^__^
I'm really getting tired of everyone imitating mac's "Lol at my enemy" advertising strategy.
However, this would make me happy to see integrated mobos that can legally play BD movies -- that means I can make a nice clean Media Centre with BD capabilities..
The competing device from AMD I guess would be their Fusion processor; but that seems to take its time to come (or not)
Hooray! Bring back the NVidia/Via buyout rumors.
(Everybody chant) FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT.
Let's see some blood, by which I mean leaps in performance and lower costs. Don't let this end in a dance-off.
Sometimes I'm amused by the thought of whether Intel made moves just to put a fire underneath NVidia's butt to get them to move - a bit of industrial reverse psychology, if you will.
Intel: "We can make the best integrated graphics."
NVidia: "Oh yeah? Well, watch this!"
OK, maybe that didn't happen. But how do we know it didn't? Maybe Intel wanted NVidia to speed things up to aid in their competition against AMD/ATI, and this was the way they accomplished it. Because whatever all Intel said, it got NVidia's "goat" somethin' good. Now they're bustin' out the moves.
Who knows? All I can see here is that it's good for the industry. A little "fire" can take things a long way, which is also good for us, the consumers.
Cassini,
I highly doubt INTEL needs any help from NVIDIA to compete with AMD/ATI. There's hardly any real competition these days between the two CPU giants. However I do think the progression of CPU advancement has slowed. So maybe NVIDIA can stoke the flames of progression.