Why don't CPU makers make GPUs?

S

shkmiami

n00b
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
25
I know this sounds like a total noob question, but why don't Intel and AMD enter into the GPU market? Afterall, aren't GPUs often referred to as your system's second microprocessor? Is making and developing GPUs that much different than making CPUs?
 
Several years ago Intel tried to get into the booming 3D graphics card business. The result of that attempt was the i740...which sucked beyond belief. This attempt was short lived and their only attempt at the add-in board market. As Brent noted Intel does have intgrated graphics, but that is it; although when you factor in both integrated and discrete cards, Intel has more market share than NV and ATi put together because of the massive OEM market and their use of integrated video.
 
Un4given said:
Several years ago Intel tried to get into the booming 3D graphics card business. The result of that attempt was the i740...which sucked beyond belief.
Click to expand...
It wasn't that bad for a 2D/3D solution. It enabled me to play Quake 1 and 2 for only 80 bucks on my Pentium II. Riva TNT or Voodoo (SLI) were too expensive for me that time.
 
Intel has an interesting solution in the integrated shared memory videochipset.

Works fine for business, but probably most important is that the new stuff uses ~7 watts.

I think Intel made a mistake by putting video on their chipsets instead of moving the memory controller to the CPU (Like AMD did) I mean sure, they sell a lot of integrated videochips, but sooner or later most people do actually buy a real videocard (even $50 special low-ends from Nvidia and/or ATi) and either disable or use it as an emergency secondary. So the numbers that they use are inflated.
 
Un4given said:
Several years ago Intel tried to get into the booming 3D graphics card business. The result of that attempt was the i740...which sucked beyond belief.
Click to expand...
The 3D part of the i740 (aka Real3D Starfighter) was made by Real3D, a company that Intel purchased the core and patents from Real3D's parent, Lockheed. The 2D portion was made by Chips&Technologies, one of Intel's acquisitions (look on old ATI cards to see another company that used C&T's 2D core ;)). It was just a low end card, sold at a low end price. Nothing was really bad about it from that perspective. I had one when it was out.

Look at old reviews: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=309&p=7 and http://www.avault.com/hardware/print_review.asp?review=starfighter . At the time, the i740 didn't have a native OpenGL driver (it used a D3D wrapper), but D3D performance was pretty respectable. When the OpenGL ICD was released months later, Q2 640x480 performance jumped up to the mid-40s fps (vs 23fps with my overclocked Rendition V2100). Driver quality was much better than on the i810 integrated graphics.
 
metallicafan said:
for the same reasons that ford doesnt make space shuttles :D
Click to expand...

Shuttle Ready to launch it 10, 9 ,8 ,7 ,6 ,..... ,4 ,3 ,2, 1 We have Ignition..... and Engine failure and some rust :(
 
inotocracy said:
Oh God that thought gave me chills. ::shudders::
Click to expand...

Saab makes fighter jets... how do you feel now? :p

On-topic, it's difficult to break into an already-highly-competitive market... why not ask the reverse question, why don't GPU makers make CPUs? The answer is that the market is already highly competitive, and the billions of dollars that would need to be invested wouldn't get them much further than niche player.
 
I had asked AMD something similar once, why they didn't make an AMD64 FX that really has more graphics potential then they lead people to believe in their ads. They sent me a questionaire asking how I would improve the next line of FX chips and I told them...

  1. Make the next FX a dual core.
  2. Keep the unlocked multipliers they have now.
  3. Increase the horsepower, i.e. higher frequency/OC ablility.
  4. Use the older process with wider, more stable traces, even if that does cost more to produce. After all, they charge the customer enough for the FX name.
  5. Don't pretend the FX is worth 3-5 times that of a regular AMD64, unless it really is!
  6. Add some electronics/new architecture to the FX chips that really improves graphics, not necessarilly to add a GPU to their line-up of processors.
  7. Give me a free one to try for myself, since all my FX can really do that any other 2.4GHz AMD64 can do is use lower or slightly higher multipliers. So it does come with a 1MB L2 cache and that's nice for gaming, works better than a 512KB L2 cache. Whoopee! At @ $6-700 a pop, my FX should be capable of outrunning just about anything else out there but instead it's just a "Ford Bronco on steroids" and not a true "Hummer".
 
DanK said:
Saab makes fighter jets... how do you feel now? :p
Click to expand...

GM owns Saab. You all thought NASA's ships were bad imagine a space shuttle with parts from the Ford Focus parts bin :eek:

 
shkmiami said:
I know this sounds like a total noob question, but why don't Intel and AMD enter into the GPU market? Afterall, aren't GPUs often referred to as your system's second microprocessor? Is making and developing GPUs that much different than making CPUs?
Click to expand...


uhh...they do? Intel extreme graphics anyone?
 
GatorFX said:
I had asked AMD something similar once, why they didn't make an AMD64 FX that really has more graphics potential then they lead people to believe in their ads. They sent me a questionaire asking how I would improve the next line of FX chips and I told them...

  1. Make the next FX a dual core.
  2. Keep the unlocked multipliers they have now.
  3. Increase the horsepower, i.e. higher frequency/OC ablility.
  4. Use the older process with wider, more stable traces, even if that does cost more to produce. After all, they charge the customer enough for the FX name.
  5. Don't pretend the FX is worth 3-5 times that of a regular AMD64, unless it really is!
  6. Add some electronics/new architecture to the FX chips that really improves graphics, not necessarilly to add a GPU to their line-up of processors.
  7. Give me a free one to try for myself, since all my FX can really do that any other 2.4GHz AMD64 can do is use lower or slightly higher multipliers. So it does come with a 1MB L2 cache and that's nice for gaming, works better than a 512KB L2 cache. Whoopee! At @ $6-700 a pop, my FX should be capable of outrunning just about anything else out there but instead it's just a "Ford Bronco on steroids" and not a true "Hummer".
Click to expand...

Good point, the FX shouldn't be advertised as a "gaming processor" unless it really has some circuitry in it that makes it better for gaming than the other AMD chips. The next one will be dual-core, but the frequency will be slightly reduced from what it is now.
 
Pugger said:
Shuttle Ready to launch it 10, 9 ,8 ,7 ,6 ,..... ,4 ,3 ,2, 1 We have Ignition..... and Engine failure and some rust :(
Click to expand...
Imagine seeing a Space Shuttle roll over on the runway :eek:
 
Yea, they'd probably try blaming it on defective Firestone tires, instead of the idiot that never checks their air pressure or puts air in the tires, just like the SUV roll-overs a year or two ago!

:p
 
shkmiami said:
I know this sounds like a total noob question, but why don't Intel and AMD enter into the GPU market? Afterall, aren't GPUs often referred to as your system's second microprocessor? Is making and developing GPUs that much different than making CPUs?
Click to expand...
run CPU benchmark on 3dmark05 and thats what games would look like if your cpu was rendering the scene
 
Yep, and even with a $700 AMD FX, the frame rates in 3DMark05 look horrible. I still get @ 6,000+ 3DMarks with 05 and over 13,000 points with 3DMark03 version 3.6, so the comparisons are pretty vague for someone not knowing what they're looking at. You're right, though, if I was running games being rendered from my CPU alone, they'd all look like freeze-frame animation and not playable at all. You need a good high-end GPU to get the most out of a good 3-D game.
 
metallicafan said:
for the same reasons that ford doesnt make space shuttles :D
Click to expand...

T - 30 seconds
Maj. Tom "Ground Control, whats up with these new shuttles?"
GC "What do you mean?"
Maj. Tom "It has peddles and a shifter!?"
GC " These are the new Ford Shuttles"
Maj. Tom - Presses Gas and Revs shuttle!
 
Hey, Ford made a great vehicle in the full-size Bronco 4x4. A Bronco Shuttle probably wouldn't be so bad, especially if they made it in Canada like mine was. That would be cool, the Ford Shuttle Eddie Bauer Limited Edition! Strange how the things that work are usually discontinued. Guess they cost too much to make, so they stop making them. If they did make a shuttle these days, it would probably be "Made in China", just like nearly everything else. If NASA had a problem with it, they'd probably have to call an "800" number and get put through to someone in India, or call India to "Activate" it after changing a tire.
:rolleyes:
Some Fords aren't so bad. My '96 Bronco was made in Ontario, Canada, with a sweet 5.8 liter V-8 engine that was made in Windsor (351cc Windsor). It's possibly the most reliable "Ford" ever made, IMO and I've owned several over the years. Never had one last 10 years without major problems, until the Bronco. This "Ford" has been good to me, just like AMD processors have been. Can't launch it into space but I've driven it in nearly every "earthly" condition you could think of and it just keeps going...and going...and...
:D
 
Intel makes integrated GPU's, although they're not really meant for playing games.
 
Speaking of Fords', its funny how hard it is to get a partial refund or straight up exchange on a vehicle compared to computer parts.

My best friend just took a year in court paying lawyers an exhorbitant amount just to complain about his vehicle not working. In the end he won back most of the cost because they tried many times over to fix it, but never actually agreed to give a new exchange.

With computer parts, I've never had much problem with RMA's, infact more than 50 percent of the time I usually get something back that is better than the old part as they have run out of stock. Its just a waiting game.
 
noobman said:
Intel makes integrated GPU's, although they're not really meant for playing games.
Click to expand...
Simple games run fine on the GMA9x0 models. I've been playing UT2003/UT2004 on my laptop at 1024x768.
 
Wow this thread got wayyy off topic, lol....This is a pretty interesting thread though...Would hate to see it locked....
 
PolarbearBigEd said:
uhh...they do? Intel extreme graphics anyone?
Click to expand...
And that's why they should never be allowed to make discrete graphics cards...what a fucking disgrace. :mad:
 
If AMD DID make graphics chips, then ATi would have to buy them out (as nVidia bought ULi) Its only fair! As someone said before, keep your day job. AMD makes spectacular chips while nVidia/ATi equally as awesome graphics chips. Let them do what they do best. As far as Intel, :eek: :rolleyes: Intel.....P2 was their highlight IMO. After that, AMD took over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top