Forget about the underperforming RX 480 for a moment.
Who would you like to see enter the external GPU market and make **original** GPU core designs for the PC market other than Nvidia and AMD?
Would you welcome Intel back to the external GPU market if they made full sized versions of their Iris Pro line?
Thinly veiled nvidiot thread aside, I wouldn't mind a 3rd party.
>>55298722
Qualcomm would be a good competitor
>>55298722
>welcome Intel back
I don't recall them ever making dedicated graphics cards before. Anyway, I doubt there are many companies willing to venture into that market. There's probably easier money out there.
Maybe powerVR or whatever is a possibility.
Intel just licenses nvidia shit don't they?
>>55299071
No, as far as I know, their iGPU designs are original. They do need to get some patents licensed, though.
Matrox is still in business and it would be awesome if they did something for the consumer market again.
Unlikely tho
>>55299096
A few months ago they signed some kind of deal with amd.
>>55298722
Iris pro is only good because of the expensive edram cache. Intel basically buys performance with expensive tricks. It works tho, so whatever.
>>55299051
>I don't recall them ever making dedicated graphics cards before
Intel released a card called the i740 in 1998. They advertised it as a high-end card that was going to destroy the competition but the actual performance was equal or marginally better than the top cards of 1997 (Voodoo, RIVA 128) making it only a middle-range card in 1998. It was a pretty embarrassing situation for Intel and they had to quickly reprice their cards to aim at a different market.
Also the cards came with an AGP Texturing gimmick which meant they could come with less VRAM because they would use AGP bandwidth to texture from system RAM instead. It didn't work that great and often just caused stuttering from textures thrashing into the framebuffer.
Anyway Intel eventually killed off the whole external GPU project and salvaged in as an intergrated graphics solution, and thus the Intel intergrated graphics line was born, starting with Intel i810 motherboards which used a slightly improved version of the i740 called the i752.
It's funny cause the i810 intergrated graphics got a really bad reception back in the day but relative to the best graphic cards available at that time it wasn't THAT horrible. I think the absolute pits for Intel integrated graphics was the shit they were pumping out in the P4 and Core 2 days.
>>55299277
Interesting, thanks.
>>55299327
No problem. I think Intel is a really greedy company but more competition in the GPU industry (or any industry really) would be really good.
Nvidia and AMD have essentially created a duopoly where they each try to establish a monopoly over different price points. That is really shitty for the consumer.
>>55298722
I would welcome any competent alternative. Intel just can't design good GPUs for whatever reason. With all their cash, you would think they would design something to get those sweat, sweat enterprise shekels nvidya rakes in with Tesla. But Intel has phi/knights landing, so I guess there's that.
>>55298722
>Would you welcome Intel back to the external GPU market if they made full sized versions of their Iris Pro line?
No, because they can't write graphics drivers worth shit.
Expect kernel panics, flickering screens, buffer corruption, and other such “fun” things if you use intel iris drivers, especially on new hardware lines.
The number of times we have to compile our own kernels at work to patch in some work-around for intel GPU driver bugs is beyond ridiculous.
Apart from that, I also have ethical concerns with buying intel. The thieving jews don't need more support.
>>55299277
Good god man the 845G and then the original + 2nd gen GMA chipsets.
I'm having nightmares when I sleep this day.
>3DFX could still be a brand name if they didn't fuck up
More competitors means better prices for consumers, at least it usually does.
>>55299384
>Intel just can't design good GPUs for whatever reason
Iris Pro 580 has pretty decent performance considering the ridiculously small die space. It can do 30 minimum fps in MGSV (albeit on Low) and over 40 minimum fps in Tomb Raider (on High, though not Max).
>>55299514
Yeah and it only took what, nearly 8 years of playing catch-up on the integrated design space, with a constant massively better CPU?
No matter how good the new GT4 is compared to Intel's past designs it still isn't much to talk about compared to the competitor(s)
>>55299468
The Intel "Extreme" (lol) Graphics in the 845G was literally just a rehash of 1998's i740. In 2003. So yeah that was pretty fucking nightmarish.
The GMA series performed worse than the absolutely cheapest end discrete cards from...two years prior.
Absolute garbage.
>>55298722
Could we somehow modify the Phi ? I know they dont have video output. But what about DX12 or whatever to speed up some calculations ?
>>55299105
This.Also S3 graphics along with 3dfx.
>>55298722
STMicroelectronics
I thought the Kyro cards were awesome back in the day.
>>55298722
Rendition
And for PowerVR to go outside of TabletLand.
>>55302446
This, I loved my Kyro2, the first card with emphasys on AA ever. But STM is in so deep shit nowadays and the GPU market is so dependant on "built over the years" know-how that will be completely impossibile for them to compete with Nvidia or AMD.
>>55298722
There is no market for new desktop GPUs. All the money to be made is in the IoT tablets cellphones and set top boxes.
>>55298722
3dfx. Oh boy how much I want them back.
>>55299468
>extreme
>845/865G/GV
EWWW no. I actually had to use a 865G system with the onboard iGPU because my old Radeon 7000 32MB died. Needless to say I danced in joy when I got a Radeon HD3450 512MB AGP.
>>55299014
Adreno is basically Radeon. ImaginationTech briefly sold PowerVR for the desktop PC market, but there was no money in it.
>>55302887
>3dfx. Oh boy how much I want them back.
Most of their talent went to Nvidia. Its never going to happen.
>>55300571
kek
>>55298722
>>underperforming
citation needed
>>55298722
Who knows, it's not like it's realistic to assume anyone but Intel could actually compete. 3dfx and Matrox would be cool novelties but there's a reason those two left the consumer space (Matrox) or shriveled up all together, their designs just weren't as competitive.
I would probably be okay with a beefy but inexpensive Intel dGPU.
>>55299422
For the all the size and talent at Intel they are woefully unprepared to take on Nvidia and AMD in the graphics dperatment. Ignoring the hardware side of it (which they are pretty good at all told) they are in no way ready to provide the sort of software support a gpu needs.
With cpus everything has to play by the cpus rules or gtfo. Gpus are a totally different beast with so many hacks and fuck ups at various stages (in both games and the APIs) both AMD and Nvidia have entire teams working just to get supposedly finished code to actually fucking work. Nvidia in particular does a lot of re-writing in their driver to stop games shipping broken. This is all uncharted waters for Intel and they don't really know what they are getting themselves into.
>>55304675
>Nvidia in particular does a lot of re-writing in their driver to stop games shipping broken.
this goes both ways. many developers release "broken games" because they cannot gain access to the gpu's drivers source code. resulting in them either having to create their own hacks around it or ignore it and let nvidia/amd fix it themselves. very similar to the late 90's to mid 2000's with all the web page design hacks to make pages work on shitty IE5, 6, and 7 since microsoft didn't support standards and wanted to do things their own, closed source way.
