Intel rips into NVIDIA's Ion platform
By Donald Melanson 
posted February 24th 2009 12:56PM
posted February 24th 2009 12:56PM
Intel and NVIDIA aren't exactly hiding their differences with each other these days, and it doesn't look like that's about to change anytime soon, especially when it comes to NVIDIA's turf-encroaching Ion platform. According to a document apparently now making the rounds in some circles, Intel not only says that NVIDIA is simply reusing an integrated graphics chipset designed laptops and desktops, which will "in turn leads to higher costs as well as high power consumption," but that NVIDIA is overstating interest in Ion from OEMs, saying that "as of this writing, no customer has publicly disclosed plans to design Ion-based products." Intel reportedly further goes on to say that "NVIDIA's Ion HD playback may not be as good as NVIDIA claims," and even if Ion is more powerful, "neither gaming nor video transcoding are relevant to netbook and nettop users." As if that wasn't enough, Intel closes things out by saying that since it'll be releasing its own update platform by the end of the year, "the window of opportunity for Ion is very short." Of course, there's still no indication that any of this will lead to a hard break between Intel and NVIDIA, although NVIDIA does at least now have VIA to fall back on.
oh snap.
I publicly state that I want to build at least 3 (three) 'nettop' computers on base of Nvidia Ion platform using Atom dual-core as CPU and I NEED HD video playback. I also want to build at least 1 (one) 'netbook' computer on base of Nvidia Ion, I don't give a damn about increased power usage, don't care about smaller battery life as long as I can play back HD videos on my netbook/nettop.
I need more than internet pages and youtube!
Happy now, Intel?
Oh and I want those things to cost around $300 each. If its $500-600 each, I'd rather build a gaming PC for $625 based on TomsHardware components choice.
$300 is high, you can do a 3GHZ C2D complete with case and 9x NVIDIA graphics for $400. I would like to see ION in the $200 range if possible, maybe $250 - barebones. do a search in Newegg for saved builds - search for XBMC cheap - and you'll find my $400 build. ION needs to be cheaper than that although I'll pay maybe a little more because it's a small form factor and low power...
Well, since Intel put it THAT way, I can see NVIDIA throwing in the towel now...
Maybe not transcoding, but playback would be nice. Or I'll just buy a Mac Mini. Oh wait, that's still Intel... >.
As much as I like Nvidia, they are having illusions of grandeur thinking that the core of the PC is shifting to the GPU rather than the CPU. "Hey guys! I'm relevant!"
Hey guys, I want to play video on a netbook without it stuttering!
Ditto, I would like to play more old school games (like Q3) at native resolution and 32bit without stuttering in addition to 720p video. Although, to be honest I am not sure what 720p smoothness will do for me as I watch 1080p videos anway (with 800+ pixels that aren't black bars).
These days...the processing units are inching towards an integration with graphics units. Take it this way...imagine a single processing unit performing the task of both the CPU and GPU. So, the new unit = CPU + GPU. No need for a separate graphics processor.
AMD is already working on it and has termed it 'FUSION'. I think this would be the solution to bring graphics power to netbooks and UMPCs.
@john doe
Intel is releasing one at the end of this year or early next year.
Intel's Clarksdale/Arrandale CPUs just combine the GPU die onto the CPU package... AMD's Fusion takes it a step farther by putting the GPU processor onto the actual processor die and designing the whole thing as a unit.
That said, both of these are still basically bolting CPU cores to a GPU and do not yet represent the type of totally new processor design that can handle both highly branched and highly parallel tasks like many of us are looking forward too.. It will be exciting to watch how this space develops over the next 5 years.. Assuming we are around after 2012.
delusions not illusions
wow, good thing im more of an amd person anyways, i can't believe the audacity of intel. Of course gaming and hd is what we want in nettops and netbooks, i got rid of my msi wind cause i could barely play any games on it at all.
Athlon Neo can't be far off now :)
AMD Athlon Neo + 3410 Graphics + AMD's low pricing = EPIC WIN!
What did you replace it with?
Of course we want video and games on a calculator. I got rid of my Ti 85 because it could hardly play any games at all.
The right tool for the right job. Netbooks are not laptops.
Intel...more like jerks-tel
This is VERY simple for me. NVIDIA's GPU accelerated drivers on Linux mean I can use one of these to build a DAMN nice STB capable of decoding H.264 encoded BD rips under XBMC for Linux. While i can do that now with the CPU using software decoding it takes a C2D running 3GHZ or so to do it. With GPU acceleration it can be done for a FRACTION of the CPU and a dual core ATOM is probably good enough to do it.
So YEAH, this particular piece of hardware is of extreme interest to me and a bunch of other folks. In fact if NVIDIA were to ship the exact device they were displaying called ION for a reasonable price I'd buy it. I don't need it as a netbook, in this case I need it as a low powered plugged in box and it's PERFECT for that. By all means give me a 9x based notebook chipset for video - it stomps the crap out of Intel's offerings by far!
Intel on the other hand offers me exactly jack squat in the way of acceleration that I need. Their drivers are slow and unstable for my needs and they do not do H.264, or VC-1 acceleration the way NVIDIA does. CPU usage on my embedded 9x desktop motherboard with a 3GHZ C2D went from 70% in some test clips to 10%, Intel offers nothing at all that can come close to that performance.
Give me the ION, it's "good enough" for what I want to do and I see nothing that low power out there anywhere else. I wish I could have it in my netbook too and Intel is right I won't be gaming or transcoding on that. But it might be nice to be able to use as a portable video player which it sure as heck cannot do now!
Oh, and I am ALREADY running two ATOM powered desktop units on XP for kidster usage. I tried playing some video on one of them - lol! It's fine for their games and playing around but sorry Intel it's not good enough to be used for XBMC as a STB running Linux. NVIDIA has the VDAPU accelerated drivers I need, you don't, game over.
i wish i could be as badass as you
Yeah, I think it's more exciting in the STB market than in the netbook market. I can _just barely_ play WoW on my Atom/945 chipped netbook, and let me tell you, 1024x600 means stuff is only just barely legible in game. Throwing a faster framerate at it would only make is a smoother mess of not enough real estate, y'know? But for a STB that could use an accelerated decoder for mkvs and other CPU-abusing codecs? I'd be down for it. On the other hand, if the GN40 is as all-fired as claimed, it's a wash either way.
Ditto. ION in a nettop = perfect STB. Low power means it can be on most of the time without costing a fortune.
I completely agree with BLKMGK. I, and hundreds of members of the MythTV-users mailing list are dying for this platform to hit the streets. ION changes everything in the HTPC world. It enables full 1080P H.264 HD and digital audio out of a device the size of 2 decks of playing cards, and for a very reasonable price.
The fact that Intel is commenting on this at all means they're scared of this platform hitting the streets.
Any evidence that NVIDIA is pushing this platform exactly for commercial STB usage?
Most STB use a variant of LINUX anyway. It seems like a good business decision to get into this market with their devices.
Gaming and video transcoding may not be relevant to Netbooks but that doesn't mean a bit of extra grunt wouldn't be appreciated. That way users might be able to do ordinary things like play Flash video without skipping or copy a 720p video that they'd normally play on their desktop and play it on the go. Anyway, why shouldn't a netbook be able to handle a bit of casual gaming?
i just want a cheap netbook/ultra-portable that can do basic gaming. nothing fancy like crysis. possibly WoW. so i can carry it around without a laptop bag. good battery life would be nice too.
Is there any ion HW out in the wild that can be tested to see who's telling the truth? I really don't see the point to any this smack talk. If the HW is availble then that will show who right and who is blowing smoke up the public's a$$.
Phoronix.com did a test of the hardware and gave it a pretty good thumb's up. they have also tested the heck out of VDPAU and found it to be pretty darned good. So far though no actual hardware on the street for our hot little hands :-(
Much of the smack talk is that. Intel is trying to convince investor not to buy shares of NVIDIA by talking down there work which would in turn make Intel more of value.
It happens all the time in all businesses.
Why are Intel such spoilsports? I hope Nvidia wins the court case and Intel can shut their mouth for a while. I prefer AMD for pc's anyway, had one in my last desktop, but my new laptop has a slow 2ghz Intel Centrino Duo (too slow for vista). Where is an AMD competitor for the Atom and coming Moorestown chips?
I would like to see this ION chipset in action, whether it is with Intel chips, VIA chips like have been reported or Nvidia's own.
Intels pissed because they made a big deal out of the Atom coming out. And then a lot of companies jumped all over it and we consumers bought a ton of them. So now they are sitting on all this capacity for high end processors that no one but gamers wants.
Success can really suck cant it? Long live the Atom! Proof that you dont need the latest and greatest CPU to look at the web
i like where this is going
Not relevant?
What about a nice, quiet, mini media box?
I can't keep it straight anymore: which one is the lesser evil?
HD playback doesn't have to be as good as they claim to crap all over Intel's bleeding-edge.
Can anyone say FUD? I guess it's worth a try, huh.
THIS.
Intel (the 800lb gorilla): "OOGH OOGH! COMPETITION BAD! FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD!"
"i just want a cheap netbook/ultra-portable that can do basic gaming. nothing fancy like crysis. possibly WoW. so i can carry it around without a laptop bag. good battery life would be nice too."
Exactly. A portable wow netbook that i can tether to my iPhone is all I'm waiting for. WoW plays SEMI ok on my gf's Wind, but lags terribly in cities etc.
My netbook has Nvidia's Geforce 9300 which is similar to what the ION will put out and the HD on it is vey good, even with an Intel chipset. Why would I want a netbook that can't play HD, hell even new smartphones can do that. Get with the times Intel!!!
You've got what, an ASUS N10J? At $699 I'm not sure this is still a netbook, nor if that's the pricing Nvidia has in mind do I think most people will pony up that sort of cash.
And for what?
Here's what CNET says about the video playback:
"Even with the graphics turned on, the N10J performed similarly to other Atom-powered Netbooks in our benchmark tests and in casual use. Attempting to watch hefty HD video content files still taxed the Atom CPU and resulted in choppy playback, but standard-definition video files played fine."
Meaning you don't get what you'd expect really. And the battery life drops from 6.5hrs or so to about 4 if you're using the Nvidia graphics. So about a 40% drop in battery life.
I think all of this sounds just fine for that little media center PC I'm gonna want, but it ain't gonna fly on netbooks. Sorry.
Sounds like Intel is afraid.
I do appreciate using a desktop chip will increase power consumption. But in TV-connected home media boxes a few Watts isn't going to sink the ship.
What a bunch of idiots Intel must think that we (the tech interested public) are. Of course people want HD video playback and 3D graphics in combination with the small, low power, $30 Atom CPU.
Intel is just trying to protect itself, both its chipset/graphics sales and the sales of its more expensive processors that it wants to market for video and graphics users.
I hate when companies think we're stupid.
I wish AMD would start making good products.
Oh boo hoo, Intel can't stand a little competition?
Yeah intel that right....your IGP solutions rule...........Intel, you suck! Long live ION. ION looks like a pretty good htpc client with win 7.
I have an atom based netbook, even common stuff like youtube videos are no where near smooth, but full screen DivX is, figure that one out. We need something better, and history has shown that Intel isn't going to give use something better until they feel market pressure. If not for the Opteron, AMD x2, and Via C7 we'd all still be using Itainium, P4 and ULV Celeron. And without NV and ATI IGP's we'd still be on 810 and 945 based graphics chipsets for everything not just netbooks.
Check your history books, Intel had no idea what it started when it first made the 8086, and it hasn't gotten any more insightful as time has past (the P4 proved this). They only know how to react to market pressure and they do so very well, so lets all hope the innovative likes of AMD, NVidia, and VIA stick around to keep that pressure on.
Tell that to the R&D department that made the i7. That chip runs circles around anyone, and quad core+quad HT means an amazing encoding machine (1080p video at 10fps, x264, rd on all frames, exhaustive, trellis, etc, etc, and while limited to only 4 cores)
But Intel is already getting sloppy, delaying products because not because they're not ready, but they want to maximize profits. I really wish AMD were back in the game. There's no debate that companies make better products when the competition gets its ass kicked every once in a while.
hope ion laptop with 1280x720 resolution can crush the 1024x600 or 1366x768 high price nonsense
"Intel not only says that NVIDIA is simply reusing an integrated graphics chipset designed laptops and desktops, which will "in turn leads to higher costs as well as high power consumption"
And just what does Intel suppose they are doing with the ancient 945 chipset?
That can't even be called a GPU, that's just a piece of silicon, no use whatsoever.
Thing is though that the software has to be written to support hardware acceleration. Like even the pre-unibody MacBook Pros choke on 1080p sometimes because the Quicktime process isn't truly hardware accelerated, despite having a decent GPU in there.