backtop


Print 85 comment(s) - last by tcsenter.. on Aug 1 at 9:22 PM


Epic's Unreal Tournament 2007
Epic Games boss Mark Rein has it in for Intel

Just when you thought Intel was having sitting proud with its new Core 2 Duo/Extreme processors which are turning out to be quite the gaming chip, here comes an attack from a totally different angle. When it comes to PC gaming, Epic Games Co-Founder Mark Rein has an axe to grind with Intel. Rein took Intel to task over heavily promoting its integrated graphics offerings on the desktop and notebook front that are far inferior to the latest in graphics technology used by ATI and NVIDIA.

Integrated graphics offerings from Intel litter the PC market and are the reason why the company is still the number one provider of graphics controllers in the industry. When DailyTech last reported on the status of the graphics industry, Intel was leading the way with 37.5% of the market. The next closest was ATI with 26.5% and NVIDIA followed with 18.7%. "Integrated graphics cannot compete with the console gaming experience. If you're going to be out there creating these great next-generation games that kick ass and look wonderful, and help to sell these next-gen systems, you're screwed if your customers have Intel integrated graphics," said Rein at the at the Develop conference.

Rein feels that Intel’s large size and power in the industry has stifled game development on the PC side and hinders developers in making PC games comparable to their console brethren. He also states that Intel preys on the ignorance of consumers to the importance of graphics horsepower with today’s game titles. “For example, a game like Gears of War - there's just no way we can make that run. We can dumb it down to run on a lower-end 7-series or 6-series NVIDIA GPU; we can dumb it down to run on an ATI X1300, something of that nature - but it just will not scale down to Intel integrated graphics. It's just not possible,” continued Rein.

Details are starting to unfold on Intel’s next generation graphics architecture as reported by DailyTech late last month. GMA  X3000 is reported to feature a 667MHz graphics core along with an improved T&L engine. HDR will be supported as will Pixel Shader 3.0 and Vertex Shader 3.0. Whether the improvements under the hood will be enough to satisfy Rein remain to be seen, but chances are they won't.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Don't get it
By cochy on 7/14/2006 4:12:08 AM , Rating: 4
How is Intel to blame? If you get a system with integrated video then you are most probably not buying the system for the purpose of gaming. Even so, you could easily upgrade and pop in a dedicated graphics board later on. This guy is blowing steam and making no sense.




RE: Don't get it
By shadowzz on 7/14/06, Rating: 0
RE: Don't get it
By tuteja1986 on 7/14/2006 8:02:19 AM , Rating: 2
John Dvorak is crazy dude but he is good with subject he knows something about but he has to much confidence In him that makes him think he knows everything about what every he is talking about. He makes really ridiculous nonsense statment about technology or issue he has no idea about thanks to his uncontrollable ego. Arr I stopped listening to TWIT podcast because of him but i do listen to episode where they have a dude like harries who knows what the hell he is talking about.

As for Rein he is an Nvidia idiot , he is on the Nvidia paycheck.


RE: Don't get it
By jkostans on 7/15/2006 1:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
payroll?


RE: Don't get it
By Xavian on 7/14/2006 4:18:33 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Rein took Intel to task over heavily promoting its integrated graphics offerings on the desktop and notebook front


This is what Rein is talking about, not the fact that the motherboards come integrated, but rather that Intel is heavily promoting their Intel Integrated Graphics.

Many people may buy these motherboards (not tech geeks like us) with IGP's and think they are set for whatever next-gen games come out. Looking at forums for game developers myself i can clearly see what the guy is talking about. On Developer Support forums there are quite a few 'The game wont run on my PC' threads, when when looked at you find they are running some Intel IGP solution that isn't enough to power the game, let alone run it smoothly.

Mark Rein doesn't care if its Integrated, but cares that Intel markets it as so its all you'll ever need for playing games :)


RE: Don't get it
By Knish on 7/14/2006 4:24:52 AM , Rating: 2
I have a proposal: Why doesn't NVIDIA and ATI make graphics affordable again? I remember when $300 was the absolute top of the line, and $150 got you enough bang for the buck to play anything. Now you have buyer's guides that recommend getting the $400 card to play the newest Doom engine game. Most people can't afford that, and isntead you're going to see people playing games that support GMA 3000 and GMA 950 instead because that's what they can afford.

And BTW, I play WOW on my Core 2 Duo notebook with GMA 950 and it actually runs just fine. This reminds me a lot of the programmers that were whining that multi-threading is hard to program for.

So yes, if Epic complains that cheap hardware "hurts" his development... guess what? Blizzard sure has no problem making a game that works on GMA 950, so I guess I'm sticking with that. Stop whining if you want my money.


RE: Don't get it
By defter on 7/14/2006 5:17:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have a proposal: Why doesn't NVIDIA and ATI make graphics affordable again?


NVIDIA's and ATI's graphic cards are affordable. Even $50 card is way better than Intel's IGP. With $100 card you can already play most modern games comfortable at 1280x1024 without FSAA/AF.

Sure, most fastest cards are very expensive, but have you looked at prices of FX/EE CPUs?

I find it quite silly that people don't have anything against a single CPU costing $999, but will complain that a more complex GPU+512MB very fast memory + PCB combination costs $500-$600.


RE: Don't get it
By Trisped on 7/14/2006 12:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with video cards is that everyone buys the fastest availble (or that is all they talk about getting) where CPUs people buy fast, but also look at cost, as $1000 for a 2.9GHz vs $300 for a 2.4 GHz is a bit much.


RE: Don't get it
By animedude on 7/14/2006 6:02:00 AM , Rating: 3
Where did you get that "Core 2 Duo" cpu notebook?! I want one too!


RE: Don't get it
By Loc13 on 7/14/2006 11:58:02 AM , Rating: 2
You have a Core 2 Duo notebook? WOW!! you mean core duo..


RE: Don't get it
By Xenoid on 7/15/2006 1:10:10 AM , Rating: 2
WoW is a little bit easier on a system than Epic or iD games. I can run WoW fine (15-50 fps woohoo) on a 6-8~ year old computer. Integrated Intel graphics cards are craptacular and all this guy is saying is that they shouldn't be used.


RE: Don't get it
By meson2000 on 7/17/2006 8:46:46 AM , Rating: 3
Just because WoW 'runs' on your GMA 950 notebook with all the effects turned off and at a low resolution, doesn't mean you playing the game the way it was meant to be played.


RE: Don't get it
By wallijonn on 7/17/2006 1:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
[quote]Rein feels that Intel’s large size and power in the industry has stifled game development on the PC side and hinders developers in making PC games comparable to their console brethren. [/quote]

Basically, it comes down to Intel making a graphics chip which is comparable to a console. People see that a $200 console can play a game but a $600 PC can't, and they wonder why. Well, it can't be the memory because consoles have a lot less memory. So it must be the graphics chip.

If Intel is promoting their graphics chipsets as being able to play games and it can't even beat a console, then it is a waste of time and money.


RE: Don't get it
By Tsuwamono on 7/15/2006 10:28:43 AM , Rating: 2
Well my friend bought a cheap system for gaming with an ATI Xpress 200 in it and it runs battlefield 2 just fine. Ofcourse it doesnt compare to my X850XT but it plays it and thats what some people want.. they want something NOW that will play most games and they plan to upgrade the GPU later. Intels are so crappy though that you cant do that


RE: Don't get it
By drxploder on 7/18/2006 12:31:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, most people don't realize it but a $100 7600GS will run any game right now at acceptable speed (Unless you are a total graphics whore).


Not just GPU price is important
By Luckykraut on 7/14/2006 6:30:46 AM , Rating: 2
I think this guy is damn right.
In another interview published in Germany he explained that people buy a 1000$ computer (for their kids?) and find out that it does not run any good game due to Intel "extreme" graphics.
He claims that they turn to the console market.
If you compare the price of an XBOX360, 400$, great graphics and fps and avarage computer prices, 600-1000$, sucky fps, what would you chose?
Most people have no clue of what makes a decent gaming engine...




Hold on a minute...
By Nightmare225 on 7/14/2006 9:12:01 AM , Rating: 2
I just realized something, why are they talking about running Gears of War on a PC when it's an XBox 360 only title, could this be some kind of clue as to the future of that game... I hope so :D


RE: Not just GPU price is important
By Hare on 7/14/2006 9:21:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you compare the price of an XBOX360, 400$, great graphics and fps and avarage computer prices, 600-1000$, sucky fps, what would you chose?
Obviously the PC because the same parents propably want a real computer instead of a box that can only run games...


RE: Not just GPU price is important
By Tyler 86 on 7/15/2006 2:53:58 AM , Rating: 2
Then they should buy what they want, at 300 to 500$, Monitor included...

He's talking about something the kids can use.

Oh, and the XBOX360 would beat the motherloving crap out of that 600-1000$ PC if Microsoft ported Office over to it. :P


By Tyler 86 on 7/15/2006 2:59:44 AM , Rating: 2
Expanding on that...

3 cores, 6 threads, heavy vectorization...
Spread Sheet and Word Processor heaven.
Just imagine the amazing graphics crap you could do with Adobe's and Macromedia's products... hell, even Power Point...

The average Intel integrated graphics package-deal-PC is an absolute rip off.
Far better going bottom of the line all the way if you even think about picking Intel graphics; you do not have anything that can truely even stress a current generation 20-50$ Celeron or Sempron...

So what if it takes 30 minutes instead of 24 minutes to make that DVD? ...

Just getting ripped off, that's all it's about.


RE: Not just GPU price is important
By cochy on 7/14/2006 10:29:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you compare the price of an XBOX360, 400$, great graphics and fps and avarage computer prices, 600-1000$, sucky fps, what would you chose?


Depends what you need. An Xbox 360 really won't help the kids do their homework or properly browse the web. Consoles are also sold at a loss where as PCs are not. Games are also specially coded and optimized to run on the set console hardware, which guarentees a specific framerate. Also do not forget that consoles run games at much lower resolutions than are possible on a PC. Even with the new HD capabilities of the Xbox 360 we are talking about 780 lines, which is about the minimum resolutions people like the play their PC games at.


RE: Not just GPU price is important
By Tyler 86 on 7/15/2006 3:10:13 AM , Rating: 2
You're leaving out all the way-greater-than PC anti-aliasing and anisotropic filters they apply to these low-resolution images... and they can crank them out at 1920x1080. That's over 2 megapixels, at a steady minimum of 60 times per second.

Oh but with the XBox 360 it's only interleaved, right? That's just over 1 megapixel then, right?
Well, with the high sample antialiasing and high quality anisotropic filtering, you're squeezing anywhere from 8 to 16 megapixels into it.

That's almost a gigapixel per second... That's insane.

.. but the modern 3D video game on that 1000$ PC will run at 800x600 without any fancy stuff 'just OK'.


By Fenixgoon on 7/23/2006 2:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
1) Actually, target framerates are generally 30 FPS, not 60. If you can keep a constant 30 fps, absolutely no variations, then a game would be perfectly playable.

2) 8-16 Mpixels != 1gigapixel. 1000x 1million = 1 billion. you're 984 - 992 megapixels short of a gigapixel

3) a $1000 PC will make a KILLER gaming machine. My pc is roughly worth $600 and runs most games at 1280x1024 with little issue. If people took their time to research products and pricematch, they'd get a much better deal.

4) 800x600? please crawl back under the XBOX360 rock from which you came. Clearly you have no clue about the modern GPU market, prices, or performance.

5) So you bought an xbox360. congrats. But wait, you need that $10,000 65inch plasma tv to get 1080p out of it. No one considers the cost of a TV (it's assumed that everyone owns one already).


no graphics card = no gamer
By roeller on 7/14/2006 4:23:47 AM , Rating: 2
So he is complaining, that Intel makes graphics chips for people who are not interested in gaming? Seriousley, anyone who wants to play games on their PC has a graphics card installed.
Maybe he is referring to those who have no idea what´s inside their PC and want to try out a litte Unreal Tournamen 2007?




RE: no graphics card = no gamer
By The Cheeba on 7/14/2006 4:27:54 AM , Rating: 3
He's upset because Intel is promoting GMA 3000 like its going to be a good card for gaming (it's not, it's exactly the same as GMA 950 i think).

Honestly though, I think the best games don't require uber-graphics. Instead of complaining that 80% of the world's hardware doesn't want to run his games, maybe he should just create good games that run on 100% of the world's hardware.


RE: no graphics card = no gamer
By segagenesis on 7/14/2006 8:23:51 AM , Rating: 2
No kidding. I know a majority of "hardcore" pc gamers would be quick to dismiss those silly flash based games on whatever website... but I can tell you that alot of people play them... ALOT. I mean hell people still play solitare and minesweeper alot in the workplace and they are just getting replaced by the above.

As far as Mark Rein goes he cant have his cake and eat it too. Maybe he could start buying a $300+ video card and bundle it with every game they sell for free. Until he starts doing that he can shut the hell well up and go back to developing for the Xbox 360.


BUT- you Can't..............
By Dfere on 7/14/06, Rating: 0
By segagenesis on 7/14/2006 10:13:31 AM , Rating: 1
Thanks dictionary boy. I'll remember to keep one by my desk next time because apparently typos nullify ones statement even though people know what you mean anyways.

"Teacher teacher! You forgot to give us a homework assignment!"


By OvErHeAtInG on 7/17/2006 12:32:34 AM , Rating: 2
Huh?

"Having your cake and eating it too" is an idiom which refers to enjoying the advantages of two alternatives at once... "having it both ways," "getting the best of both worlds," as it were.... I don't see the problem.

However: a lot are two words. "Alot" is not a word *shudder*. And no, segagenesis, that doesn't refute your argument, it's only distracting. Okay, annoying. :P


RE: no graphics card = no gamer
By poohbear on 7/17/2006 2:38:49 AM , Rating: 2
solitaire? flash games? dude, those make no money. The games industry wants people to BUY their games, not visit some free site and play games. is that your interpretation of the games industry?


RE: no graphics card = no gamer
By rrsurfer1 on 7/17/2006 1:15:22 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, those games DO make money. It's called advertising. Why else would someone offer up free bandwidth, and content ? His point was, most people don't game heavily and there is no need for much more than integrated graphics. I have to agree. However, if Intel is misleading people into beleiving their integrated solutions will handle todays games, thats another matter.


Maybe...
By Frank M on 7/14/2006 9:53:02 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe mainstream gamers don't want to spend $1500 top-notch equipment that will be out of date in a few years, when consoles will likely be supported longer and cost less.




RE: Maybe...
By Tyler 86 on 7/15/2006 3:22:01 AM , Rating: 2
You'd be supprised how far 1500$ will go if you don't buy it from an Intel-locked main-stream seller.

HP Pavilion Media Center TV m7560n PC
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product...
Price: $969.99 ($919.99 w/ mail-in rebate)
2.2GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 (Dual Core) 4200+
2GB PC2-4200 DDR2 SDRAM
320GB 7200rpm SATA hard drive
NVIDIA GeForce 6150LE w/ 256MB shared video memory

... and that good ol' "main stream" Award-Recognized customer support.


Only thing is, you'll have to buy the monitor seperately. No worrys, even the large flat ones they don't cost an arm and a leg anymore... or go to Radio Shack and get the guys there to give you the adapters you need to hook it up to that big screen TV you got for the big game and your frickin Nintendo or whatever, or buy a large yet very very cheap CRT.

Also, it comes with a Remote, and you saved $100-$500. :P


RE: Maybe...
By Ringold on 7/16/2006 3:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
Tyler 86, holy cow do you not know what you're talking about.

Why would you EVER compare a pre-built OEM overpriced low-quality heap of crap with a proper home-built lean machine?

Did you even read the Anandtech Building A Better Budget PC article? That $651 AM2 machine can do anything under the sun! I've got an X800XL and can play most games I come across at 1600x1200 at decent frame rates, so a 7600GT XXX most definitely can beat the living crap out of the systems you're talkinga bout here, trying to compare to consoles.

Look. People like you need to understanding that consoles are okay for gaming in a childish dumbed-down manner. They can be fun, absolutely. Lets also assume everybody needs a computer. Add the cost of a console to a pre-existing budget computer in the form of additional hardware to enable game playing and the graphics, resolutions, and huge, huge, huge assortment of varied things you can do on it just puts a console to shame. Stop trying to debate technical prowess of one system over the other; its all theoretical except a few key things, and utility of a PC trumps a console in all other respects (especially a HTPC). End of story.


RE: Maybe...
By Tyler 86 on 7/16/2006 4:59:32 PM , Rating: 2
Ringold, holy crap do you not know what you're talking about?

The problem is we're not talking pre-built at all.

Joe Average putting together anything more complicated than ... ok, putting together EVEN a toaster oven is a disaster waiting to happen. They don't want to keep track of individual manufacturers warranties, and they want to have a single tech support service.

Yeah that $651 AM2 machine is great, I myself have a rig consisting of a Open-box 939 A64X2 4400+, ASUS A8R32-MVP, Geforce 6800GT, 4 GB of CL2.5 @ CL2 DDR400, 4 frickin Raptors in a RAID 5, and twin DVD burners... Total price?

I know you're only defending Anandtech, and for that I applaud you.

We're talking prebuilt though. Yeah yeah, prebuilt machines all have bad vs price ratios, but the prebuilt machine I just picked out in 2 a minutes search meets Joe Average's needs + a bit of gaming on the side.

Re: End of story, or can you argue some more?


RE: Maybe...
By Tyler 86 on 7/16/2006 5:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
Notice Sarcasm: The problem is we're not talking pre-built at all.


RE: Maybe...
By Tyler 86 on 7/16/2006 5:01:05 PM , Rating: 2
wtf it ate my total price...

$1350


RE: Maybe...
By rrsurfer1 on 7/17/2006 1:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
Nice system.


Open your eyes
By Hare on 7/14/2006 4:37:54 AM , Rating: 2
It's called marketing. Every single company says that their product can power this and that and you will see photorealistic graphics (just not with >5fps). If people are stupid enought to buy a system with Intel IGP (laptop/desktop) and expect it to run the newest games they deserve to be disappointed.

Most people understand that low-end products can't do everything. People who buy systems with Intel IGP are looking for cheap and energy efficient systems. Not high-end gaming rigs.




RE: Open your eyes
By cochy on 7/14/2006 4:58:14 AM , Rating: 2
Furthermore, on the notebook side of things. Most vendors do not promote notebooks with Intel graphics as suitable for gaming. If you're interested in gaming, you'll be steered towards an Nvidia or ATI solution. So I think that most consumers are generally decently informed.


RE: Open your eyes
By Pabby on 7/14/2006 5:19:38 AM , Rating: 1
Agreed

If the cinsumer doesn't do their research before they buy then they only have themselves to blame.


RE: Open your eyes
By Eric2203 on 7/14/2006 11:06:34 AM , Rating: 2
Right, because everyone's been blesses with knowledge of computers. Hmm... yeah sure...

Learn to read, will you ? The argument is about the marketing behind the chip, which is misleading. And not everybody is able to figure out what it all means. That's why those marketing tactics work.


RE: Open your eyes
By theprodigalrebel on 7/15/2006 7:56:52 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I'm not exactly an expert on automobiles (actually, I'm not even at an intermediate level)...but even I know what a billboard advertising an SUV as "More Power, More Storage AND Better Mileage" means.

If you want to use computers, better learn a little about them or get help. I blame Steve Jobs for this: he's been screaming from the rooftops that people should be able to surf the Internet and do their thing even if they have minimum knowledge of computers.

I digress. I don't attempt to cook without a cookbook in hand. I don't attempt to assemble furniture without the instruction manual in hand. I don't attempt new and unusual hairstyles without discussing it with my fashion-and-style conscious friends. People shouldn't be buying computers (or anything) based on marketing gimmicks. This is the age of the informed consumer - there's no reason for anyone to fall for cheap marketing ploys.


RE: Open your eyes
By dilz on 7/15/2006 2:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't attempt new and unusual hairstyles without discussing it with my fashion-and-style conscious friends.


Thank you for supplying me with my newest catch phrase! :)


RE: Open your eyes
By poohbear on 7/17/2006 2:41:27 AM , Rating: 2
"I don't attempt new and unusual hairstyles without discussing it with my fashion-and-style conscious friends."

rofl!!! yes because computers are so much like hairstyles. Thanks for the wonderful (albeit completely off, as in another universe off) analogy.


It is entirely Intel's fault
By dgingeri on 7/14/2006 11:34:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How is Intel to blame? If you get a system with integrated video then you are most probably not buying the system for the purpose of gaming. Even so, you could easily upgrade and pop in a dedicated graphics board later on. This guy is blowing steam and making no sense.


The problem is this: most buyers don't know what they're getting. They get the $499 system from Dell with the nive 17" LCD monitor, then try to play games on it. It doesn't work because it has integrated graphics. They try to upgrade the video card, but stupid Intel has sold the chipset without a slot (AGP or PCI-Ex) to allow an upgrade! Then that person stops buying games because they can't spend the money on another system that is upgradeable and their current system won't handle the games.

I am sitting among 200 systems that my company wants to upgrade to Vista when it comes out, but they all have the cheap 865GL graphics chipsets (half Dell, Half HP) that don't have the AGP slot to upgrade the graphics card. This means that none of them, absolutely none of them, will be able to handle it. They have to replace nearly every system here due to graphics limitations. I have tested these systems with the 5308 beta without the Areo interface and with 2GB of memory. they still don't handle it near well enough to be usable. I don't like having to wait 30-40 seconds for a new e-mail to come up when I want to write one.

Fortunately, I have convinced my company to buy new HP dx5150 Athlon64 X2 3800+ systems with the ATI integrated graphics, and a PCI-Express X16 slot, for future purposes. Most companies won't have someone like me with enough influence to avoid buying systems with low end graphics and hard drives that aren't worth the paper the check is printed on. These stupid P4 2.8/ 865GL based computers aren't any better at handling XP than the P3-500's with TNT2 M64 video cards I have in storage. My boss couldn't understand why. Well, I finally brought my secondary system in to show him what parts are worth what. My secondary system has an Athlon 700 with a Radeon 9550 video card and an 80GB HD. It outperformed the P4 2.8 systems with ease in every single app we use. the responsiveness was so good he asked me to leave that system for him until he got his replacement.

It is Intel's fault that game sales for selling the low end chipsets that don't have an upgradable video system. They did this on purpose so people would have to buy a whole additional system in order to upgrade. They are causing so many problems. Yet, they are still doing this same thing with the new 915GL and 946GL chipsets. People will continue to spend money on systems that cannot handle the games they want and cannot be upgraded. It is entirely Intel's fault for this.




RE: It is entirely Intel's fault
By deeznuts on 7/14/2006 5:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
Turn off the damn eye candy then. It's not really necessary in a work environment anyway. Run it without the aero interface. Oh you want that eye candy? Well then bite the bullet and get new systems.

[quote]People will continue to spend money on systems that cannot handle the games they want and cannot be upgraded. It is entirely Intel's fault for this.[/quote]
Entirely? I put some blame on the individual and salesman if any. Is the consumer buying a premade box? Well is it dell's or hp's fault or intel? Intel designed the logic, manufactured the chipset. Someone else still builds the box.

And if it's the consumer building the box, well the blame is all on that person. Intel probably didn't even make the motherboard, it's the mobo's fault (I use that term loosely, it's nobody's fault really) they didn't include an expansion slot. Did intel instruct them not to?

You sound like you have an axe to grind with intel, going to the extreme of saying they are solely at fault for this. Solely at fault, as if nobody else had a part in it, not dell, hp, asus, foxconn, uninformed consumer. System recommended = amd x2. secondary system = athlon. AMD FB maybe? ;)


RE: It is entirely Intel's fault
By dgingeri on 7/14/2006 6:40:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Turn off the damn eye candy then. It's not really necessary in a work environment anyway. Run it without the aero interface. Oh you want that eye candy? Well then bite the bullet and get new systems.


I can't get these Dell or HP systems with this garbage 865GL chipset to properly run Vista even with all the eye candy turned off. That's the problem. I could tell them to buy new video cards to get them running, but because Intel made the chipset without the ability to have an AGP slot, the only option is PCI video cards, which are near impossible to find these days, even if we would be willing to pay $200 for an ATI 9250. It's been extremely difficult to get these to work well in any case due to Intel's chipset.

It's their fault for even making these stupid chipsets available, and then pushing them as 'affordable'. they should have stuck with the 865G and left the ability of having an AGP slot. Instead, they are making the whole thing worse by interducing the 915GL and the 946GL, both with single channel memory and no ability to upgrade the video. "Affordable" never includes wasting your money.


RE: It is entirely Intel's fault
By Tyler 86 on 7/15/2006 3:36:45 AM , Rating: 2
Amen, brother, amen!

That's the same dog-eat-CPU game I'm tired of playing.

Business level software has finally hit, and hit hard, the minimal Joe Consumer graphics level.

Responsiveness, flexibility, presentation, and promptness.
That's what business level user interfaces are all about now.
It's not just for eye-candy and videogames anymore.

Even sugar-free graphics performance chugs with Intel IGPs.
God help me; my jaw about broke the damn keyboard when I tried to reverse sort an accountant's Excel spreadsheet on a supposedly new Dell Pentium D system. Older laptops with ATi and nVidia graphics put it to shame.


RE: It is entirely Intel's fault
By zsdersw on 7/17/2006 1:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
Who bought the systems with those chipsets? Who looked (or, perhaps more accurately, didn't look) at the specs close enough to know (not know) what they were getting?

It takes two to tango, kiddo. It takes someone to sell a crappy product, and someone to buy it... so don't get all high and mighty about it being "entirely" anyone's fault.


RE: It is entirely Intel's fault
By Paladin165 on 7/18/2006 3:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
"Turn off the damn eye candy then. It's not really necessary in a work environment anyway. Run it without the aero interface. Oh you want that eye candy? Well then bite the bullet and get new systems."

Human factors research shows that productivity goes up with more visually attractive UI's. Its a kind of visual ergonomics, and a way to reward employees for concentrating on their screens. Remember, your employees have to stare at this thing 8 hours a day. You might as well tell them they can sit in metal folding chairs all day because "it's not really necessary in a work environment anyway."


translation
By littlejim68 on 7/14/2006 5:20:00 AM , Rating: 2
Here is what Mark Rein said translated: “if consumers would spend more money on their PCs, I could make more money selling games. I am frustrated at the fact that companies that code for the lower end videochips that are installed in 90% of the computers out there make more money then I do.”

Just my 2c




RE: translation
By jilchev on 7/14/2006 6:52:36 AM , Rating: 3
No he do not say that at all ... my 2c :D

I think also he is not right to make PR over what is obvious.

And since he is right in general Intel took notes a long ago and hardly working to address this... especially in notebook market where things are shifting to, we talk for average system to handle let say Vista at least.



RE: translation
By Tyler 86 on 7/15/2006 2:44:06 AM , Rating: 2
It's more like he's saying Intel is ripping customers off.
Their integrated solutions tack on a 2$ graphics chip that doesn't even have it's own dedicated framebuffer to their motherboards and charge 30-60$ for it.

It's a good way to rip off customers, most of those that buy into it (I'm gonna go out on a limb here) thinking it's top-of-the-line or console-like-quality are people no tech support person would ever want to deal with. Ever.

They will buy a 50$ Epic or id software game and then complain that they didn't get their 50$ worth out of it - but they want to, oh boy, do they really want to...

It greatly diminishes the number of customers Epic & id software get, through no fault of their own.

I have seen some absolutely bizzare things happen to people with Intel graphics... From random screen discoloration, user interface problems, font problems, screwed up movies, hard locks, sudden reboots, even funny smells...
Even general user interface performance on basic ancient minimal graphical requirements -- Flash games even -- tend to stutter and lag... and when it happens, everything else they're doing lags too.

It's funny. They're used to it now.
There's one guy I know that lagged in speech when his laptop was graphicly lagging... Cleared right up when we got him a new one with minor nVidia integrated graphics.

They don't associate overall performance with the graphics, because they don't realise just how important graphical applications are to their user expirience.

Most applications wait on the GUI, as being part of the same thread. That's a small part of why Intel sort of leaned on multithreading and hyperthreading.


RE: translation
By Tyler 86 on 7/15/2006 2:50:37 AM , Rating: 2
Expanding on 'through no fault of their own'...

Honestly, they can make their games run on Intel graphcis chips... in fact, I believe they all, if not most of them, do...

The problem is, they don't really run... they crawl, and randomly crash.
The game software is not at fault; it's delivering to what are the exact specifications of DirectX and/or OpenGL... Intel says their chips can handle it, but in truth they only just dangle it...

For the Intel graphics WoW guy... In all politeness, you don't know what you're missing... you're used to the crap you're being shoveled. :)


RE: translation
By jinnji on 7/16/2006 4:54:11 AM , Rating: 1
Not just pointing fingers. But those without BMW's and other high-end cars don't know what they are missing. Automobile companies like Hyundai, GM, and other crap companies are ruining the automobile industry by putting out cheap cars that are not fun to drive.

Everyone shouldn't be forced to pay a premium for a computer. It's not just the computer industry that is getting shafted by low end items. What about the all the other low end crap we see in the grocery markets that claim they are the best. Are they bringing down the food industry?


RE: translation
By Tyler 86 on 7/16/2006 4:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
Unhealthy food claiming they're healthy, like the Kellogs cereal of old days?

Endorsed by Doctors to say it keeps you healthy, when a hearty original breakfast was 10 times better...

Yeah, that brought down that brought down the food industry.

It's not about 'fun', it's about effective.

You could say car manufacturers that are stil pushing gas fueled cars are holding down the automobile industry.

Some even say Wal-Mart is disrupting the economy by it's business practices.

Having an Intel 'Extreme' graphics chip is akin to Honda putting out a Turbo Civic Hybrid Type-R at the same price as a 2 year older Ferrari... It's just, wtf?

If Intel's only playing on the low end, they should aim at the low end; none of this Extreme X4000 crap and all these buzzwords.

Marketing or not, people who buy and use the Intel IGP chips are looking for a cheap, low-tier, bare minimum graphics chip, or a mainstream graphics chip. Unfortunately, the Intel IGP chips are right inbetween there, in the Ricer piece-of-crap area.


only 18%???
By poohbear on 7/14/2006 4:13:42 AM , Rating: 2
nvidia only has 18% market share in the graphics industry?!?!? wasnt it @ 25%-30% b4?




RE: only 18%???
By Xavian on 7/14/2006 4:22:12 AM , Rating: 2
i believe its total marketshare, since ATi has been in the mobile/PDA market longer then nVidia they have a larger market share because the mobile/PDA graphics markets are added into it.


RE: only 18%???
By Calin on 7/16/2006 6:54:32 AM , Rating: 2
That is integrated graphics. Overall, NVidia and ATI are possibly before Intel (just take into consideration that many of the video solutions sold are on-chip).


True...
By Trisped on 7/14/2006 12:29:34 PM , Rating: 3
Intel's pushing of their integrated graphics is a problem. They work great for the office (most of the time) but just don't cut it in a real 3D environment. What we really need is to educate users on what they need to make a play machine.

Not to name names, but I like how a certain company is introducing a hardware evaluator that grades the computers hardware, that way you know if you can run the games out their. Still, if my AIW 9800 PRO gets a 4.7, and my Intel 630 gets a 3.0, and my 1GB of DDR400 RAM gets a 3.2, they may need to re-do their numbering schemes.




RE: True...
By Nyago123 on 7/14/2006 5:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
Still a rant by Rein. Intel is a business.

If they use doggie poop and put it in your computer by cleverly marketing it as the latest in liquid cooling solutions, that's up to them- they profit if their marketing fools people into paying for the poop, and they suffer the consequences if in the longer term there is a consumer backlash against their products.

I think Rein should rant against nVidia and ATI for not doing more to educate consumers and to get the likes of Toshiba, Dell, etc to include their chips in their notebooks and desktops. Until then, he's the next Larry Ellison/Scott McNealy in my book.

For the record, I have integrated graphics in my notebook because I don't care about gaming on that platform, though if I had been given the choice (I wasn't) I would have gotten an ATI or nVidia solution just because Intel is so suck-ass about delivering drivers. In that regard, I'm gonna blame Toshiba for not giving me the option, though.


RE: True...
By blaster5k on 7/15/2006 9:43:38 AM , Rating: 1
Having met Mark Rein, I would take anything he says with a grain of salt (unless it's info on one of their games). He has some ADD issues. He always feels compelled to blurt things out just to get attention, like he just did with these comments, which don't even make much sense.


Don't want it - don't need it
By Zim on 7/16/2006 1:25:13 AM , Rating: 2
I have Intel integrated graphics on my notebook and it does the job just fine. I don't play games so why would I pay a premium for 3D graphics? Epic can keep their games - I have zero interest in them.




RE: Don't want it - don't need it
By Tyler 86 on 7/16/2006 5:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
All it means is you're paying 20-45$ too much.
An equivelantly priced nVidia or ATi IGP would smoke it, and give you better 3D graphics.

Like I said above; most people interested in Intel IGPs don't want an 'Extreme' graphics chip, they want a bare minimum, or even mainstream ... but Intel's "Extreme" graphics components are right inbetween there, in the Ricer piece-of-crap area.


By Paladin165 on 7/18/2006 4:07:54 PM , Rating: 2
well maybe your children want to borrow your laptop to play games on it...too bad.

maybe tomorrow they come out with a game you really DO want to play, too bad.

maybe you want to upgrade to Vista in a few months? too bad

maybe you want to sell it to someone who has an interest in games in a few years, too bad.

the point is you have limited options and it would only cost intel like $40 to provide a decent graphics chip. Wouldn't you have paid $40 more for the flexibility? Graphics aren't JUST for games you know.


IGP does what it's supposed to do
By jebo on 7/14/2006 10:02:55 AM , Rating: 2
Intel Extreme is crap at this point. Plain and simple. It's also what....3 years old?

The GMA950 and so forth does what it's supposed to do: have the featureset necessary to play today's games, albeit at a low resolution/low FPS.

He complains that Intel could throw $8-$15 at an IGP and make it more powerful. Well the thing he's neglecting is when intel is selling 1,000,000 of these IGPs per year, well you do the math.




By dgingeri on 7/14/2006 11:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel Extreme is crap at this point. Plain and simple. It's also what....3 years old?

The GMA950 and so forth does what it's supposed to do: have the featureset necessary to play today's games, albeit at a low resolution/low FPS.

He complains that Intel could throw $8-$15 at an IGP and make it more powerful. Well the thing he's neglecting is when intel is selling 1,000,000 of these IGPs per year, well you do the math.


Let me guess, you have an MBA in accounting. Well, let me tell you something, the $8-$15 for an better integrated graphics wouldn't mean crap to a person buying a system that would cost them $599 instead of $499, yet would handle the things they want rather than leave them constantly wanting a system that would actually work. Intel would actually make more profit, but the problem is that they are listening to their stupid MBA accountants who don't understand that selling people on things that don't meet their needs is much, much worse than selling them up on something that would meet their needs.

The whole idea of UMA needs to be junked. It is the major problem with current normal users systems, wether personal gamers or corporate users.

I'm a former retail sales person, and I had to deal with computer makers' dumb ideas of paring down certain components to make something cheaper while making it unusable. Examples: using hard drives 3-4 generations old to save $15 on the system price that leaves the system waiting on data to load off the hard drive, Intergrated UMA graphics that cause the CPU to wait for memory transfers to save $50, small memory pools of (currently) 256MB to 512MB to save another $50. Then they crank up the processor speed to sell the person on the system, raising the price and cost by $200 or more.

I'd like to see some manufacturer sell a system with a low end processor, but faster hard drives, dedicated graphics, and large memory pools, and watch it spank the competition in every arena.

The biggest problem is that there are too many stupid people out there that buy a system based on CPU speed thinking that is the only thing that matters, and Intel encourages that stupidity with their product line.


Missing the Point
By shamgar03 on 7/14/2006 11:53:31 AM , Rating: 2
I think most of the people here are missing the point. What he is getting at is that the entire PC gaming industry is suffering because of ignorance. When people don't know what to buy they just watch the commercials and apply what they have learned their to their spending habits. Its not that IGP's aren't doing what they are supposed to do its that Intel IS doing what its supposed to (advertising) at the cost of long run popularity of PC gmaing. Microsoft is (thankfully) looking to fix this with vista which will promote PC gaming more and give your PC a rating. What MS really needs to do is A) educate the user and B) get more PC hardware companies to collaborate with standards etc.




RE: Missing the Point
By soybeast on 7/16/2006 2:48:25 AM , Rating: 2
Amen.

At least somebody here sees the big picture.


By ElFenix on 7/15/2006 6:00:26 PM , Rating: 4
THOSE are the companies that are selling the product to the consumer, and THOSE are the companies that should be ensuring the customer gets the equipment she needs to run what she wants. intel made cheap integrated graphics so it could sell more processors in systems where cheap integrated graphics are all that is necessary (like business and grandma's email machine). dell *in particular* should be blamed for shipping so many systems with no upgrade capability. with an hp/compaq machine the consumer may upgrade when they realize that their machine doesn't meet their needs, but with many dells they didn't include the slot at all.

as for the guy that said ati and nvidia are to blame, the 7600GT and X1800XL will run most stuff at most resolutions just fine, and are decently inexpensive.




Simple Hard Fac
By mercilessming on 7/17/2006 11:36:59 AM , Rating: 2
Rather you agree with Rein on Intel destroying Gamer Market, the fact is the retail store computer buyer doesn't understand you need a good video to run games, hell even the sales person really doesn't understand much more than you need a video card and they will sell something the Nvidia 5200 or ATI equal saying it will play everything. Dell/HP computer companies should sell 2 systems, one that has integrated junk call it the do everything but play games, and then sell the range of better pcs that have nothing less than Nvidia 6600GT or ATI equal in them, were you can play games. Make it straight up to the consumers This doesn't play retail shelf games, this plays games, then there is nothing to understand in theory, beside debateing on how high to go for turning on all the pretties in a game.




RE: Simple Hard Fac
By UNHchabo on 7/17/2006 1:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
That's what Dell has been trying to do with their XPS line. I think the bare minimum (for Nvidia, I don't know ATI too well) is a 7300.


By zsdersw on 7/17/2006 1:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
25% of PCs having Intel integrated graphics does not spell the end of PC gaming.




By Hare on 7/17/2006 2:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
Most of those computers sit on office desks. I guess with an nVidia 7900GTX everyone would be playing UT instead of working, eh...


Intel
By PT2006 on 7/14/2006 4:17:38 AM , Rating: 3
OK, so because Intel brings millions of low cost graphics boards to the market, its their fault that Epic can't program for them? News-fucking-flash: not their problem. I thought the gamer ethernet card was the dumbest thing I've seen this week, but now this takes the cake.




Intel's new graphics
By dgingeri on 7/14/2006 11:40:16 AM , Rating: 2
BTW, the old GMA950 integrated graphics is about equal to the old TNT video cards with 32-bit memory. The new X300 is leaps and bounds ahead, but still only equal to about a Geforce4 MX400 video card with 64-bit memory. It won't be good for even Vista's Areo interface. Although Intel try's to say it will run it, it's just like their current integrated graphics with XP, slow as hell and slowing down the whole rest of the system. I can make a P3-500 run faster than any P4 with integrated graphics, without spending any more. The whole problem is integrated graphics and it's sharing of main memory.




Depends on the system you buy...
By Morpth on 7/14/2006 12:28:56 PM , Rating: 2
If the family buying the PC with integrated graphics is buying it as a gift...the advertisement might sound good.

I have a case in point...My wife before we met bought a Dell L1000R with the integrated graphics. I went to upgrade the system with a new AGP adapter, Dell took the entire slot off the motherboard! I guess if you don't order exactly what you want those affordable looking PCs, you get screwed.

She now needs a good PCI slot graphics card to push video to her new flat panel screen. Classic, buy a flat panel, and then a new PC cause the Intel Integrated Graphics won't push the 1280x1024 the default resolution is set at!




lotsa games
By SonicIce on 7/16/2006 5:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
even though a whole pc costs alot more than a console, you are able to play any game in the past and for the next few years. consoles will only play thier new games, but sometimes theres classic bundle games with a dozen old school games. I like the idea of still being able to play any game out there for pc while consoles only have the limited library while the console was in service.




PC Games...
By Regs on 7/17/2006 3:01:28 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with the PC game industry, obviously, is that the minimum system requirements for most modern games include AGP or PCIE and we are still stuck on integrated graphics. Doesn't help when the leading candidate adds crap on it's motherboard and charges you a premium for it. It's a valid gripe I think. Espcially when you combine a 150-200 dollar value Core Duo that can crunch some heavy numbers with integrated graphics that could hardly run Civiliaztion 4.




By QueBert on 7/17/2006 3:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
My neighbors don't understand needing to look at a game box to see "required system specs"
The average consumer doesn't know what a video card is, or does. And those who do, tend to know very little. It doesn't help the matter any when there are so many different cards on the market. As an average joe, I don't think I would be able to decypher that an x800 is faster then an x1600. What typical person is going to walk into a Best Buy and understand the x800 with 256 megs of memory is way faster then the x1600 with 512. Throw all the other dozen or so cards they carry, and people are confused. With a console, you buy it, it plays ANY game. Very simple. A computer? you might be SOL, even if you get one with decent intergrated graphics, it might not have a slot for upgrading. if Ut2k5 sucks on my Intel Extreme system, I'm probably not even going to think about blaming Intel, but I will say "epic is craaaap!" Why? Because, once again I don't know the difference between 64 bit and 128 bit memory. And ummm the Raedon 9200 w/512 megs should run ANY GAME! Average joe might actually see that $50 super budget card as expensive, especially if he only paid 400 for his entire pc. X300 is a step in the right direction. You can get an X300 intergrated board for very cheap. Intel isn't going to do anything to improve what they offer any time soon. They make all the money, and the game makers suffer because BF2 won't run on Johnny's 400$ PC. And you can't blame him for being to stupid to know why




if he is right .....
By otispunkmeyer on 7/18/2006 2:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
then i actually think its a good thing (that intel have supposedly held back gaming). games today require so much horsepower to get the best experience its a joke. for a top of the line rig you could buy a very decent 2nd hand car, only the car wont be out of date 6months later.

if anything i think the cost of PC gaming needs to come down, and if intel are doing that by producing crap graphics chipsets that stop dev's making crazy-insane looking games...fine by me, my x1900xt will last longer





By Paladin165 on 7/18/2006 3:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
"Maybe he is referring to those who have no idea what´s inside their PC and want to try out a litte Unreal Tournamen 2007?"

Yes, I beleive he is. These kinds of customers make up a good 30% or more of the active PC gaming market, and more than 90% of the potential PC gaming market.

Stop complaining. He isn't speaking to hardware fanatics like us, and nothing he is suggesting would hurt us. In fact if intel got more into the gaming graphics market, it would probably have the effect of reducing prices on high-end cards from Nvidia and ATI, so it would be great for us.

Also it would just be nice if games ran on mainsteam machines. Whenever I visit my parents I can't play any new online games because their hardware is too slow/not directX9 complaint. Actually, windows vista will probably up the demands on Intel's integrated graphics.




By Narg on 7/19/2006 10:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
Intel's not the only one to blame. Both ATI and nVidia make integrated graphics motherboard chipsets. Though ATI's latest is as good as their X1300 chipset, so they are at least already breaking through.

The system integraters should be to blame also. The worst part of buying a Dell or HP or Gateway with integrated graphics is that they have also removed the AGP or PCIx16 slot so upgrading is not an option. That alone is the worst part of this problem. Allowing integrated graphics is great, expecially for low cost business. But when those machines are sold to home user types, they need to be able to upgrade. AND THEY CAN'T!!!!




By tcsenter on 8/1/2006 9:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
What is the point of equipping every PC with graphics that could run Far Cry or Gears of War when the majority of PC's sold will never play more than Solitaire? This is akin to suggesting that every automobile sold be capable of 0-60MPH times of not more than 5 seconds and a top speed of not less than 150MPH...just in case.

Is Dodge/Chrysler 'dragging down the high performance car industry' because it sells more minivans in one day than it sells Vipers in an entire year?

The market has for over a decade consistently voted with their dollars that it doesn't see the PC as a gaming platform and prefers consoles (no crashing, no patches to download every week, no reinstalling software, no security threats to personal information, overall better gaming experience due to the technical advantages of dedicated gaming hardware). Game consoles dominate the video game market by a significant margin for many reasons that have nothing to do with the 3D gaming performance of PCs.

Besides, Intel integrated graphics are heads above VIA and SIS for gaming. Intel maintains a game support list for its integrated graphics, and at least makes an effort to improve driver support for every game that technically can run on the hardware.

Intel's game support list shows compatibility with numerous games that simply will not run on VIA or SIS graphics, in spite of having almost identical hardware capabilties and feature set (e.g. no hardware T&L). This can only be explained by significantly more effort put into driver support by Intel.




"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki