91–100 of 274 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a 48GB B60 already [1] but it’s definitely a significant amount more than 3X B50 pro (you obviously get way better performance). [1] https://www.maxsun.com/products/intel-arc-pro-b60-dual-48g-t...
No good if the cost is identical to a 5090.
The new CEO of Intel has said that Intel is giving up competing with Nvidia. Why would you bother with any Intel product with an attitude like that, gives zero confidence in the company. What business is Intel in, if not competing with Nvidia and AMD. Is it giving up competing with AMD too?
Foundry business. The latest report on Discreet Graphics Market share Nvidia has 94%, AMD at 6% and Intel at 0%.
I may still have another 12 months to go. But in 2016 I made a bet against Intel engineers on Twitter and offline suggesting GPU is not a business they want to be in, or at least too late. They said at the time they will get 20% market share minimum by 2021. I said I would be happy if they did even 20% by 2026.
Intel is also losing money, they need cashflow to compete in Foundry business. I have long argued they should have cut off GPU segment when Pat Gelsinger arrives, turns out Intel bound themselves to GPU by all the government contract and supercomputer they promised to make. Now that they have delivered it all or mostly they will need to think about whether to continue or not.
Unfortunately unless US point guns at TSMC I just dont see how Intel will be able to compete, as Intel needs to be a leading edge position in order to command the margin required for Intel to function. Right now in terms of density Intel 18A is closer to TSMC N3 then N2.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they don't manufacture RAM, so none of the margin goes to them
They sell the completed card, which has margin. You can charge more money for a card with more vram.
It's not competing with amd/nvidia at twice the price on terms of performance, but it's also too expensive for a cheap gaming rig. And then there are people who are happy with integrated graphics.
Maybe I'm just lacking imagination here, I don't do anything fancy on my work and couch laptops and I have a proper gaming PC.
Really confused why the Intel and AMD both continue to struggle and yet still refuse to offer what Nvidia wont, i.e. high ram consumer GPUs. I'd much prefer paying 3x cost for 3x VRAM (48GB/$1047), 6x cost for 6x VRAM (96GB/$2094), 12x cost for 12x VRAM (192GB/$4188), etc. They'd sell like hotcakes and software support would quickly improve. At 16GB I'd still prefer to pay a premium for NVidia GPUs given its superior…
This to me is the gamer perspective. This segment really does not need even 32GB, let alone 64GB or more.
Not bad with 16 GB VRAM, a bit disappointing on performance though, looking at the Blender 3D (open source) benchmarks: https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/query/?compute_type=... It clocks in at 1503.4 samples per second, behind the NVidia RTX 2060 (1590.93 samples / sec, released Jan 2019), AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT (1539, May 2022), and Apple M3 Pro GPU 14 cores (1651.85, Oct 2023). Note that this perf comparison…
Really confused why the Intel and AMD both continue to struggle and yet still refuse to offer what Nvidia wont, i.e. high ram consumer GPUs. I'd much prefer paying 3x cost for 3x VRAM (48GB/$1047), 6x cost for 6x VRAM (96GB/$2094), 12x cost for 12x VRAM (192GB/$4188), etc. They'd sell like hotcakes and software support would quickly improve. At 16GB I'd still prefer to pay a premium for NVidia GPUs given its superior…
I am not sure there is significant enough market for those. That is selling enough consumer units to cover all design and other costs. From gamer perspective 16GB is now a reasonable point. 32GB is most one would really want and even that not at more than say 100 more price point. This to me is the gamer perspective. This segment really does not need even 32GB, let alone 64GB or more.
The new CEO of Intel has said that Intel is giving up competing with Nvidia. Why would you bother with any Intel product with an attitude like that, gives zero confidence in the company. What business is Intel in, if not competing with Nvidia and AMD. Is it giving up competing with AMD too?
>What business is Intel in, if not competing with Nvidia and AMD. Foundry business. The latest report on Discreet Graphics Market share Nvidia has 94%, AMD at 6% and Intel at 0%. I may still have another 12 months to go. But in 2016 I made a bet against Intel engineers on Twitter and offline suggesting GPU is not a business they want to be in, or at least too late. They said at the time they will get 20% market share…
They may not have to, frankly, depending on when China decides to move on Taiwan. It's useless to speculate—but it was certainly a hell of a gamble to open a SOTA (or close to it—4 nm is nothing to sneeze at) fab outside of the island.
The new CEO of Intel has said that Intel is giving up competing with Nvidia. Why would you bother with any Intel product with an attitude like that, gives zero confidence in the company. What business is Intel in, if not competing with Nvidia and AMD. Is it giving up competing with AMD too?
>What business is Intel in, if not competing with Nvidia and AMD. Foundry business. The latest report on Discreet Graphics Market share Nvidia has 94%, AMD at 6% and Intel at 0%. I may still have another 12 months to go. But in 2016 I made a bet against Intel engineers on Twitter and offline suggesting GPU is not a business they want to be in, or at least too late. They said at the time they will get 20% market share…
If NVidia gets complacent as Intel has become when they had the market share in the CPU space, there is opportunity for Intel, AMD and others in NVidias margin.
I really wonder who this is for? It's not competing with amd/nvidia at twice the price on terms of performance, but it's also too expensive for a cheap gaming rig. And then there are people who are happy with integrated graphics. Maybe I'm just lacking imagination here, I don't do anything fancy on my work and couch laptops and I have a proper gaming PC.