backtop

Hardware IGPs to Go Extinct by 2012
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - March 5, 2009 1:06 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 48 comment(s) - last by atlmann10.. on Mar 9 at 12:43 AM
JPR says that Integrated Graphics Processors will account for a tiny fraction of GPU shipments by 2013

Today the vast majority of netbook and notebook computers come with integrated graphics. Many low-end desktop computers also use integrated graphics.

According to a new report from Jon Peddie Research (JPR), the integrated graphics processor (IGP) will go the way of the dodo in a few years. JPR predicts that by 2013, IGPs will account for less than 1% of GPUs shipped.

JPR numbers show that in 2008, 67% of all graphics chips shipped were of the integrated variety. The prediction is that by 2011 the percentage of IGPs shipped will be 20%. The decline in IGPs shipping means that there will be gains in discrete GPU shipments and a significant growth in CPUs that feature integrated graphics cores.

JPR reports that between 2010 and 2012 there will be three different options for graphics including discrete graphics cards, IGPs, and CPUs with embedded graphics. Last month, DailyTech reported on future Intel processors code-named Clarkdale and Arrandale, which both have integrated graphics cores.

CPUs with embedded graphics are expected to enhance discrete graphics in notebooks and netbooks. This will allow the low power graphics core inside a CPU to be used when demands are low, but when video decoding begins or a game is launched the discrete card will kick in to provide the needed muscle. This is very much like the hybrid SLI offering from NVIDIA available today that uses the IGP and a discrete GPU for extra performance.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
So wait...
By Spivonious on 3/5/2009 1:14:53 PM , Rating: 5
They're not counting graphics integrated in the CPU core as the same as graphics integrated in the northbridge? That's kind of silly.




RE: So wait...
By MikeMurphy on 3/5/2009 1:21:08 PM , Rating: 5
The title is a complete misrepresentation of the article.

How about "95% of graphics cores to be on CPU by 2012" ???


RE: So wait...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/5/2009 1:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
The actual title of the press release is:

"Integrated graphics chip market to disappear by 2012
according to Jon Peddie Research"


RE: So wait...
By croc on 3/5/2009 6:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
Would it be too much to ask for a link in the article to the report that the article is citing?


RE: So wait...
By glennpratt on 3/5/2009 8:25:21 PM , Rating: 3
Seriously, I find myself coming here less and less because of the circular linking. It's really obnoxious; the kind of old media thinking that just wont die.


RE: So wait...
By Yawgm0th on 3/6/2009 6:15:20 PM , Rating: 3
The citation sans link of the press release is pretty much unacceptable in online journalism. Mainstream newspaper sites do it, and this is a tech site. Not properly summarizing what's happening makes it even less acceptable. We need linkage and accuracy.


RE: So wait...
By spread on 3/5/2009 1:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
My crystal ball says they will go extinct by Midnight January 1, 2014.


RE: So wait...
By afkrotch on 3/5/2009 2:33:09 PM , Rating: 5
Who cares, we'll all be dead on Dec 21, 2012.


RE: So wait...
By Obujuwami on 3/5/2009 3:39:04 PM , Rating: 1
Don't you mean the mothership will arrive on Dec 21, 2012 and transport us all of this god forsaken rock?


RE: So wait...
By DM0407 on 3/5/2009 3:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
Thats my B-Day... Happy 28th!


RE: So wait...
By DeepBlue1975 on 3/6/2009 8:04:33 AM , Rating: 2
No, means that on that date we will all be transported to Uranus to die.


RE: So wait...
By callmeroy on 3/6/2009 11:02:14 AM , Rating: 3
Such a great and positive time to be alive isn't it? Predictions of our demise (which some suggest today is the beginning of the 2012 prediction which on 12/21/2012 the collapse of the GLOBAL economy will occur, others thing the once in 26,000 year alignment of the stars will cause some cosmic energy blast that will strike our planet with more power than if the entire world arsenal of nuclear weapons were to detonate at the exact same time)........rising unemployment, scandal after scandal, crime rates going higher in most cities, our government spending money we don't have to begin with (its all borrowed - mostly from China)......AND now Michael Jackson is going on tour again? Will the horrors never friggin cease?

There's only one thing to do --- don't read the news, stock pile some weapons and food....if you have a gorgeous woman -- "please" her every day, if not get one....and let's ride out the end of man kind with a bang and having fun!

............

OR you can just not be so skeptical and paranoid .....your choice.


RE: So wait...
By justinmcg67 on 3/6/2009 7:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
You motivate me good Sir.


RE: So wait...
By TMV192 on 3/5/2009 7:46:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They're not counting graphics integrated in the CPU core as the same as graphics integrated in the northbridge? That's kind of silly.


Why is that silly? With desktops, and the vast majority of laptops, the CPU can be upgraded with a little work, thus if the GPU was with the CPU, you could upgrade that as well, current IGPs not so much


RE: So wait...
By mindless1 on 3/6/2009 10:32:44 AM , Rating: 2
That's yet another reason why it's silly. You don't ever substantially upgrade an IGP, it's whole purpose is minimal functionality not gaming prowess. Having it on the CPU carrier or even same die then replacing CPU will mean more wasted money having to replace both instead of just CPU functions.

Someone with any reasonable expectation of GPU performance above IGP being important within the life of the product, goes ahead and buys that higher performance product initially. The whole point of the highly integrated platforms is to not upgrade, to reduce size and cost. Towards that end, it's about time they started soldering on the CPU even when it's more than a lowly Atom or C7.


RE: So wait...
By Mr Perfect on 3/6/2009 12:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still glad we'll move to on-CPU graphics though. OEMs have a nasty habit of bundling the latest CPU with a chipset that's one or two generations old. They get to advertise the latest processor in their rig, while still keeping costs down. At least now those boxes will also get GPUs with current features like HD decode, HDMI output and whatever else is next. Non-gamers still want things like that.


RE: So wait...
By mindless1 on 3/7/2009 12:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, but there was only a brief period where the need rose ahead of the chipset lag. Soon it won't be a factor anymore, and people can still choose based on price-point what features a product supports, which seems the way it ought to be.

I'm fully in favor of more chipsets that can't do HD decoding to continually reduce the price of the lower end products, and as a means to optimize the current consumption of these chips as well as all other parts of the netbooks, laptops, etc, for the market segments that value longer runtime.


RE: So wait...
By atlmann10 on 3/9/2009 12:43:21 AM , Rating: 2
Thats, why it will happen. I say faster and this is the reason, if you want to upgrade your graphics you have to upgrade your cpu with cpu/gpu functionality. That means INTEL, AMD/ATI and Nvidia from what it looks like on the CPU market own you. Then when they decide they want to change MB with a new version or upgrade of DX, or any other graphics standard you have absolutely no choice even to surf the internet. Just to also note why I say sooner, Intel is already saying it's going to do it next round of CPU's (and that will be by next fall). The other reason Windows 7 and all it's co-ops of it come out at roughly the same time as currently projected.


Nvidia
By FITCamaro on 3/5/2009 1:24:12 PM , Rating: 3
This is why Nvidia needs to develop an x86 CPU. Because it'll need one with an integrated GPU on the core to continue making money. If Nvidia tries to survive solely on its desktop graphics cards, it won't last long. IGPs in notebooks are a huge market. Especially with them just getting hooked up with Apple.




RE: Nvidia
By afkrotch on 3/5/2009 1:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
Nvidia could easily survive on just desktop graphics. It of course would need to scale back. Sure if all they did was desktop graphics, they'd be a much smaller company with smaller profits, but they'd survive.

Now Intel can suck at making a hybrid CPU and instead work with Nvidia to make a much better. That or buy Nvidia.


RE: Nvidia
By Motoman on 3/5/2009 2:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nvidia could easily survive on just desktop graphics


...they'd have to stop screwing up so bad first, but probably.

As to the other issue of them developing an x86 CPU - I'd love to see it, as more competition is always better. However, I don't see them getting a license from Intel to do any such thing. Maybe if Nvidia bought Via, they could wrangle their x86 license - but I see no reason why Intel would even consider selling Nvidia an x86 license. Especially considering how pissy Nvidia has been lately towards them.


RE: Nvidia
By Pryde on 3/5/2009 10:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
Could you Imagine the PR nightmare Nvidia would go thru after them saying that GPUs are more important than CPUs and that the future is GPUs.


RE: Nvidia
By MozeeToby on 3/5/2009 2:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
If they scale back that far one of two things would happen.

1: They'd have a bad couple of products and be too small weather the storm. In other words smaller companies have less cash on hand, and a few bad years would kill them.

2: Being small and nimble, their products would be awesome and sell well. Unfortunately, being a small company also means they are more likely to have a hostile take over, especially if they stock-pile cash for the inevitable rainy day.

You can't have the brand recognition that nVidia has and while also having a small market cap. The target is just too tempting.


RE: Nvidia
By Kenenniah on 3/5/2009 2:46:32 PM , Rating: 2
Which of course is something that NVIDIA knows well. 3Dfx anyone?


RE: Nvidia
By Penti on 3/5/2009 6:39:46 PM , Rating: 2
They could always start doing ARM's with integrated graphics for cell phones and other mobile platforms maybe some stand alone media players and settopboxes.


RE: Nvidia
By zonkie on 3/6/2009 1:02:10 AM , Rating: 2
IGP's won't go away. Apple will take whatever last-gen IGP's Nvidia can make and use them in their 2012 Macbook Super Rainbow Pro and charge 3k for it.


RE: Nvidia
By Loki726 on 3/6/2009 4:22:07 AM , Rating: 3
A much more realistic scenario would be for NVIDIA (or someone else) to release a binary translator for x86 a la Transmeta CodeMorph or DEC FX32 and just run x86 code on a single GPU core for compatibility. Intel CPUs already do this with hardware decoders, and projects like LLVM and QEMU show that the performance of translated code can actually be faster than native code. GPUs are really just collections of smaller-than-atom style cores and being 10x-100x slower for single threaded performance doesn't seem so bad when you look at how much processing power is actually required for most legacy apps like browsers and word processors.

Translate sequential x86 code whose performance doesn't matter and write GPU specific 1000-way parallel code for high performance apps like video decoding and graphics.


Semantics?
By Oregonian2 on 3/5/2009 1:15:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
(title) Integrated Graphics to go extinct by 2012

quote:
...there will be gains in discrete GPU shipments and a significant growth in CPUs that feature integrated graphics cores.


Um... integrated graphics will be done away with by integrated graphics cores?

Isn't an "integrated graphic core" "integrated graphics" (even if integrated differently)?

:-)




RE: Semantics?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/5/2009 1:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
Beats me -- I think it's largely semantics as well, but maybe they are talking about IGPs in the sense of a northbridge/IGP combo.

If new processors have the northbridge and IGP combined into one chip, I guess you'd have to classify it differently. Who knows...


integrated video
By mattclary on 3/5/2009 1:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
Integrated video exists for a reason: Price.

It is cheaper to put a chip on a mobo than make a discrete video card.

If graphics move to the CPU, that pretty much leaves nVidia out. I don't care if they create an x86 CPU, they will be a third wheel to AMD and Intel.

What will keep nVidia relevant is if they start providing PERFORMANCE in integrated video.

My prediction: Integrated graphics become more powerful and stay on the motherboard.




RE: integrated video
By Hakuryu on 3/5/2009 2:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree for two reasons.

First, nothing comes for free, and having integrated video on the CPU will mean higher CPU prices. It would seem to me that manufacturers like Intel would offer both chips with integrated video and without.

Second, enthusiasts like myself who build their own PC's would not want integrated video on the CPU; another reason for chip makers to offer CPU's without it. Maybe it wouldn't make a bit of difference to simply not use that part of the CPU, like disabling integrated video on a motherboard, but it would feel like a waste to me... like wasted space or perhaps a performance hit that wouldn't exist on a chip without integrated video.


RE: integrated video
By emboss on 3/6/2009 8:18:32 AM , Rating: 2
It depends on how much die space the integrated video takes up. Given the already high and rapidly increasing costs of die masks and chip validation, it'd quite possibly be cheaper to simply have the integrated video logic on every die. Especially given that the market for processors without integrated graphics will (presumably) be much lower.


Silly!
By Roy2001 on 3/5/2009 2:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
You can say chipset will disappear too as whol northbridge with IGP will be merged into CPU.




RE: Silly!
By wifiwolf on 3/5/2009 7:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
Given the size of a graphics core and the way get bigger every year, I think graphics will integrate cpu on the same die, it just will be put in the cpu place:)


RE: Silly!
By mindless1 on 3/6/2009 10:38:30 AM , Rating: 2
An argument that GPUs are getting bigger would make it more logical to continue placing the IGP with the smaller chipset core rather than the (usually, except for the extreme low-end processors like Atom) larger CPU core.

I suspect you are only thinking of higher performance video card GPUs though, they already covered that with the discrete category and were instead referring to what little space is taken up within present northbridge designs (well maybe they were, JPR seems a bit uninformed in general about PC architecture based on what little info is relayed, it's a pity this article doesn't link to the info they're referring to).


Didn't They Try CPU-mounted Graphics Before?
By cubdukat on 3/5/2009 2:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
If I remember right, Cyrix made a x86 processor called the MediaGX that put VGA-quality graphics into the same wafer as the actual processor. It didn't work so well.

If even the most lowly Radeon/GeForce has almost as many transistors as a single CPU if not more, won't that mean that CPU's will have to grow in size as well?




By bankerdude on 3/5/2009 3:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I remember right, Cyrix made a x86 processor called the MediaGX that put VGA-quality graphics into the same wafer as the actual processor.

Yup, brings back painful memories. I had nothing but problems with that processor.


By StevoLincolnite on 3/5/2009 3:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah it had integrated sound on the CPU as well, well ahead of it's time feature wise.

However Cyrix chips unfortunately always had poor performance in gaming, which was a bit of a downer.

Was a great budget chip though, and was fine back in the day for basic word processing, internet, and 2D gaming.

I honestly hoped for the best out of Cyrix, I used to have a Cyrix MII PR300+ years and years ago paired with an S3 Virge DX/XG 2mb card (Which I added more memory chips and made it a 4mb card).

Stable, did everything I needed at the time, was cheap at the time. (Back than a Low-end PC was a good 2 grand or more).
I was hoping that when VIA bought Cyrix they would turn the Processor line around and fight Intel and AMD Head-on, more competition is a good thing, but unfortunately it never happened.


IGP to go extinct by 2012?
By i3arracuda on 3/5/2009 2:00:42 PM , Rating: 4
Just another sign of the apocalypse.

Curse you, Mayan calendar!




Whatever, the US will fail before then
By Mithan on 3/5/2009 1:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
The US will collapse and 30-40% unemployment will reign. Who is going to buy these chips?




By Tsunami982 on 3/5/2009 1:17:46 PM , Rating: 1
If that happens in the US... the rest of the world will generally have the same fate, though I don't think many logical people see that happening any time soon. Please note I stated generally and not all.


Atom skews the curve a bit
By RU482 on 3/5/2009 1:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
I would guess the Atom SoC platform, and the high volume they are predicting, will skew the numbers a bit.




Who pays people to write this?!?
By rmlarsen on 3/5/2009 5:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
Title may as well have been "By 2013 IGPs will not be called IGPs anymore". DT, please stop wasting our time by forwarding such non-articles.




Wasn't this...
By JDHack42 on 3/5/2009 9:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
AMD's plan when they bought ATI? I remember seeing something at Anand's with first on die gpu, then fully integrated gpu/cpu hybrid.




So what...
By Alexstarfire on 3/5/2009 10:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
The world is going to end in 2012 anyways. Doesn't seem like this'll matter by then.




in related news
By MadMan007 on 3/6/2009 12:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
The ACLU and NAACP have started building a case against these non-integrated graphics chips. Separate but equal, or not separate but equal, they're not integrated so must not be allowed!




Title All Wrong
By mindless1 on 3/6/2009 10:43:43 AM , Rating: 2
... should've been something like Analyst Predicts Chipset IGP Market Share Slide.

Everyone keeps thinking about netbooks or notebooks though, which is a bit odd when they'll still have at least one addt'l chipset chip. Besides trying to put the squeeze on nVidia, Intel's latest efforts have been within the idea that a CPU w/integrated GPU would find more uses in other devices that won't have need for most if not all the separate functions provided by mobile netbook/notebook chipsets, rather a different SoC per type of device.




"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki