by those standards why does intel even make the I line ? The majority of consumers would be fine with atom cpus to surf the web.
I Can Hazwell?
- Thread starter Grall
- Start date
by those standards why does intel even make the I line ? The majority of consumers would be fine with atom cpus to surf the web.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
Ok, I appreciate their efforts. But why waste the precious die space and who exactly will buy 4770 to use it with the internal graphics. It is ridiculous.
If they want to race in that segment- just build discrete graphics cards.
There is demand, of course. The market should be led by the smartest people, not by the ordinary people.
They simply want to unify the performance in all segments- what you can do on a smartphone or tablet, or a console, the same you should be able on PC...
Last edited by a moderator:
Blazkowicz
Legend
Reasons to buy Intel graphics :
- it's always there
- it's an invisible or untold cost
- lowest power GPU (that goes with a traditional "big" CPU)
- shares the cooling with the CPU heatsink
If you put it on a card instead cost and power go up, no one buys it except a few linux geeks and for computer repairs. The reality of the market, sad or not is that a totally huge amount of laptops with Intel graphics are sold too.
- it's always there
- it's an invisible or untold cost
- lowest power GPU (that goes with a traditional "big" CPU)
- shares the cooling with the CPU heatsink
If you put it on a card instead cost and power go up, no one buys it except a few linux geeks and for computer repairs. The reality of the market, sad or not is that a totally huge amount of laptops with Intel graphics are sold too.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
Do they put the same chips as in 4770 in laptops?
Blazkowicz
Legend
They do put the same as 3770 for now.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
Wow, not surprising. This chip is so tiny and even despite this, half of it beats everything AMD has...
What chip is that?Wow, not surprising. This chip is so tiny and even despite this, half of it beats everything AMD has...
UniversalTruth
Veteran
Wow, not surprising. This chip is so tiny and even despite this, half of it beats everything AMD has...
Assuming that's the 4770K, it's consistently 20%-30% slower than the 5800K in games - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-haswell-performance,3461-6.html
Obviously Richland will be further ahead and probably still be faster than the GT3 versions. Those will be similar die sizes even though Intel is on 22nm compared to AMD's 32nm.
I don't think he was speaking of the integrated GPU which performances are still mostly irrelevant.
Let see how the GT3e fares it should be a good start but I think it will still fall a bit short for "proper" gaming (as AMD part though).
Actually nobody gives much of a damned for integrated graphics performance if sales are any hints.
I like to rant about it, but I don't give a damned for the my APU graphics performances (A8-3850M), it is close to useless /waste of silicon as it gets fried by the discrete redwood I've on board, without the discrete GPU I would not have deemed my laptop worth it for my use (which include some gaming). Imo AMD have been wasting way too much die space on the GPU in their APU, for all intend and purpose neither trinity or llano needed more than 2 SIMD and 4 ROPS, / Caicos class of GPU. Sales speak by them selves at this point.
-------------------------------
So the estimate is 185mm^2 for a quad core+GT2 graphic version, it is indeed quite tiny.
EDIT
By the way thanks UniversalTruth for the info
Let see how the GT3e fares it should be a good start but I think it will still fall a bit short for "proper" gaming (as AMD part though).
Actually nobody gives much of a damned for integrated graphics performance if sales are any hints.
I like to rant about it, but I don't give a damned for the my APU graphics performances (A8-3850M), it is close to useless /waste of silicon as it gets fried by the discrete redwood I've on board, without the discrete GPU I would not have deemed my laptop worth it for my use (which include some gaming). Imo AMD have been wasting way too much die space on the GPU in their APU, for all intend and purpose neither trinity or llano needed more than 2 SIMD and 4 ROPS, / Caicos class of GPU. Sales speak by them selves at this point.
-------------------------------
So the estimate is 185mm^2 for a quad core+GT2 graphic version, it is indeed quite tiny.
EDIT
By the way thanks UniversalTruth for the info
Last edited by a moderator:
No they wouldn't be. Atom 1.0 is a complete disaster. The performance delta is QUITE visible.
I dunno the atom in the new slates works fine for surfing the web and playing facebook and metro games.
I mean that's all anyone would ever do with a computer , 99% of computer users wouldn't need anything more.
Wow, not surprising. This chip is so tiny and even despite this, half of it beats everything AMD has...
Dammit Intel, give us an extra 2 cores on the K models and keep your iGPU!
I think that is a fair trade, most the people who buy K models buy discrete GPUs and would benefit much more from a couple extra cores.
what about MS Office?
If Atom 2.0 or 3.0 is good enough, then yes, the consumer market will converge to that. There is a reason tablets are selling like hot cakes and PCs are crashing.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
Honestly, I have no idea what those reasons are. Perhaps just current fashion which will fade away in few years. I tried to do some things on a tablet and can tell you that it is awful. How those people in the corporations control other people's minds and consciousness is beyond me...
I can partially speak to this; I purchased both a Surface Pro and a Lenovo Tablet 2 for some in-house testing I forced myself to use both for 30 days as a full-on replacement for my normal workhorse -- an i7, dual core, hyperthreaded ULV powered Lenovo x220. My daily work is mostly comprised of Outlook, OneNote, Excel and Word, along with Cisco's softphone IP Communicator and Jabber client, our SCCM and SCOM interfaces, some Windows Server admin consoles, PowerShell, and VMWare vSphere client.
My opinion: The surface, powered by an ULV dual core hyperthreaded i5, seemed every bit as fast as my x220 in everything I did, but at the end of the day it wasn't comfortable to use as a tablet. It was too heavy, it was too thick, it just didn't lend itself to being held in one hand. I absolutely can defend and understand why it was that weighty and thick, as it was every bit the equal of my x220 in terms of processing capability. That didn't make it a good tablet though.
Alternatively, the Lenovo Tablet 2 is powered by the dual core hyperthreaded Atom Z2760 at ~2Ghz. Frankly, for the things that I do, it also seemed mostly the same speed as my x220. Things that were slower were mostly related to the lesser-performing wireless card in this device (it consistently connected at half the WiFI speed of my x220). When it was docked, everything else "just worked".
I do have a fairly weighty Excel sheet that has a TON of data and a decent number of macros, and the Lenovo did choke on that a bit. It wasn't painful, it was just noticeable. Since that sheet is pretty much the gnarliest thing I do in Excel, I could likely look past it.
Because of the size, the weight, the battery life and the only minor hit to performance I experienced going from the x220 to the Atom Z2780, I would gladly trade for the tablet. It's incredibly useful for the work that I do with customers, and it doesn't hinder my ability to get my other managerial-level work done either.
I tried to watch movies, read e-books, browse web sites, with my notebook computer on the move, and that's awful.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
Why?Just live and enjoy the natural surroundings. I bet they are much more beautiful
I tried to browse and post something here using a tablet and it hurt my eyes, it was so painful... not to mention that I don't have the nerves to point with my fingers on the tiny links... And the virtual keyboard which takes a huge portion of the display while typing. So no, thanks
I tried to browse and post something here using a tablet and it hurt my eyes, it was so painful... not to mention that I don't have the nerves to point with my fingers on the tiny links... And the virtual keyboard which takes a huge portion of the display while typing. So no, thanks
Of course it's related to web site designs, but viewing a web site designed with tablets in mind is, IMHO, much better than on a notebook.
Just compare a 10" tablet, such as iPad, to a small notebook computer, such as a 13" Macbook Pro. The Macbook Pro's screen is actually not much larger, but it's much heavier. The resolution is also worse. iPad's screen is actually comparable to printed paper at typical viewing distance. Most notebook (other than the very expensive retina Macbook or Chromebook) are not as good.
Reading e-books and watching videos are also much better on a tablet. There's no contest here. Also, it's not just "on the move." I like to do these thing anywhere in my house, not just in front of my desktop computers.
If you compare the number of people who mainly "consume" information, and the number of people who "produce" information, you'll understand why tablets are on the rise, while PC are not.