5 ms·
You can't be serious. Intel was well on its way to be a considerable threat to NVIDIA with their Arc line of GPUs, which are getting better and cheaper with ea
by imiric 1y ago
You can't be serious.
Intel was well on its way to be a considerable threat to NVIDIA with their Arc line of GPUs, which are getting better and cheaper with each generation. Perhaps not in the enterprise and AI markets yet, but certainly on the consumer side.
This news muddies this approach, and I see it as a misstep for both Intel and for consumers. Intel is only helping NVIDIA, which puts them further away from unseating them than they were before.
Competition is always a net positive for consumers, while mergers are always a net negative. This news will only benefit shareholders of both companies, and Intel shareholders only in the short-term. In the long-term, it's making NVIDIA more powerful.
- JonChesterfield 1y agoI'm sure Larrabee will be superb any year now. The Xeon phi will rise again. For supporting evidence, the success of Aurora. Weren't the loss-leading arc GPUs cancelled as well? Maybe that only one generation of them, it does look like some are on the market now. I think this partnership will damage nvidia. It might damage intel, but given they're circling the drain already, it's hard to make matters worse. It's probably bad for consumers in every dimension. Or to take the opposite, if nvidia rolled over intel and fired essentially everyone in the management chain and started trying to run the fabs themselves, good chance they'd turn the ship around and become even more powerful than they already are.
- imiric 1y ago> It might damage intel, but given they're circling the drain already, it's hard to make matters worse. How was Intel "circling the drain"? They have a very competitive offering of CPUs, APUs, and GPUs, and the upcoming Panther Lake and Nova Lake architectures are very promising. Their products compete with AMD, NVIDIA, and ARM SoCs from the likes of Apple. Intel may have been in a rut years ago, but they've recovered incredibly well. This is why I'm puzzled by this decision, and as a consumer, I would rather use a fully Intel system than some bastardized version that also involves NVIDIA. We've seen how well that works with Optimus.
- JonChesterfield 1y agoNone of their products are competitive, they fired the CEO who was meant to save them, fired tens of thousands of their engineers, sold off massive chunks of the company, they're still bleeding money and begging for state support? Also their network cards no longer work properly which is deeply aggravating as that used to be something I could rely on, just bought some realtek ones to work around the intel ones falling over.
- gregoryl 1y agoI have bad news about realtek networking...
- dontlaugh 1y agoRealtek is actually alright nowadays, even on Linux.
- imiric 1y ago> None of their products are competitive We must live in different universes, then. Intel's 140V competes with and often outperforms AMD's 890M, at around half the power consumption.[1] Intel's B580 competes with AMD's RX 7600 and NVIDIA's RTX 4060, at a fraction of the price of the 4060.[2] They're not doing so well with desktop and laptop CPUs, although their Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake CPUs are still decent performers within their segments. The upcoming Panther Lake architecture is promising to improve this. If these are not the signs of competitive products, and that they're far from "circling the drain", then I don't know what is. FWIW, I'm not familiar with the health of their business, and what it takes to produce these products. But from a consumer's standpoint, Intel hasn't been this strong since... the early 00s? [1]: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Radeon-890M-vs-Arc-140V_12524_12693.247598.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/Radeon-890M-vs-Arc-140V_12524_... [2]: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Arc-B580-Benchmarks-and-Specs.954008.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Arc-B580-Benchmarks-and-...
- fluoridation 1y ago
- whatever1 1y agoHas Nvidia has ran any fab successfully ?
- JonChesterfield 1y agoNope. It will/would be a learning curve. They'd probably seed it with strategic hires from TSMC.
- Retric 1y agoMergers where one company is on the verge of failing can be a net positive for consumers. Most obviously this happens when banks fail and people’s bank cards still work etc and at least initially the branches stay open. Intel isn’t at that point, but the companies trajectory isn’t looking good. I’d happily sacrifice ARC to keep a duopoly in CPU’s.
- tremon 1y agoI'm not convinced. The latest Battlemage benchmarks I've seen put the B580 at the same performance as the RTX 4060 (which is a two years old entry-level card) but with 50% more power consumption (80W vs 125W average). It's good to have more than one open source supporting graphics vendor, but I don't think Nvidia is losing any sleep over Intel's GPU offerings.
- throwawaythekey 1y agoBattlemage had the best perf/% and most the driver issues from Alchemist had been ironed out. Another generation or two of steady progress and intel have a big winner on their hands. Intel's foundry costs are probably competitive with nvidia too - nvidia has too much opportunity cost if nothing else.
- ComputerGuru 1y agoWhat is performance per percent?
- purpleflame1257 1y agoIt was a typo for $. The Arc B580 competed with the 4060 at 50 dollars less MSRP and 4GB more vram
- HDThoreaun 1y agonvidia's margins are over 80% for datacenter products. If Intel can produce chips with enough vram and performance on par with nvidia from 2 years ago at 30% margins theyd steal a lot of business, if they can figure out the cuda side of things.
- bogwog 1y agoThis is very short-sighted. The cards are improving, which can't really be said about AMD, the only other potential threat to Nvidia. It's also well known that Nvidia purposefully handicaps their consumer cards to avoid cannibalizing their enterprise cards. That means that the consumer market at least is not as efficient/optimal as it could be, so a competitor actually trying to compete (unlike AMD, apparently) should be able to do that without even having to out-innovate Nvidia or anything like that. Just get close on compute performance, but offer more VRAM or cheaper multi-gpu setups.
- mschuster91 1y ago> This news muddies this approach, and I see it as a misstep for both Intel and for consumers. Consumers still have AMD as an alternative for very decent and price attractive GPUs (and CPUs).
- adrian_b 1y agoNot everybody wants GPUs for games or for AI. AMD has always followed closely NVIDIA in crippling their cheap GPUs for any other applications. After many years of continuously decreasing performance of the "consumer" GPUs, only Intel has offered in the Battlemage GPUs FP64 performance comparable with what could be easily obtained 10 years ago, but no longer today. Therefore, if the Intel GPUs disappear, then the choices in GPUs will certainly become much more restricted than today. AMD has almost never attempted to compete with NVIDIA in features, but whenever NVIDIA dropped some feature, so did AMD.
- kbolino 1y agoThe only consumer GPUs ten years ago that offered decent FP64 performance were the GTX TITAN series. And they were beasts! It's a shame nothing quite like them exists anymore. But they were the highest of high-end cards, certainly not that common or cheap.
- adrian_b 1y agoAMD Hawaii GPUs in their professional variant (FirePro), which were cheap, unlike the "datacenter" GPUs of today, and the more recent Radeon VII had much better FP64 performance per $ than GTX Titan. Moreover, there were claims that the memory errors on GTX Titan were quite frequent. On graphics applications memory errors seldom matter, but if you have to do a computation twice to be certain that there were no memory errors affecting the results, that removes much of the performance advantage of a GPU.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Spinnaker_ 1y agoThe consumer gpu market is a rounding error compared to enterprise AI. And Intel is zero threat to Nvidia there.