So you're still talking about a chip on the mobo tho? "Discrete" seems to be context, as you usually hear discussion of market share etc using "discrete" to mean non-IGP. You seem to be using it to mean something IGP-like (if not exactly part of the northbridge itself).
Standard Inquirer bull or something potentially interesting?
- Thread starter Mariner
- Start date
Was it ever confirmed that Intel's PowerVRS5 licence is for SGX? IIRC it was announced for "Eurasia", a Series 5 family improving on the first implemenation of S5 (presumably the one for Sega). SGX was then announced as part of the Eurasia family, with other members to be announced later.Lazy8s said:
amk said:
I'm not sure but I don't think that the SEGA chip or original S5 (name it whatever you want) even belongs to the Eurasia family. It's my understanding that the latter was a "non-unified" shader core design, while Eurasia is.
http://www.imgtec.com/news/Release/index.asp?ID=409
Considering the INQ's newsblurb it could be from absolute bullocks to a minor misunderstanding. PDAs are pocket PCs which is one possible explanation and the other would be that there might be standalone graphics sollutions from Intel in the future, yet I don't expect anything for the high end segment either.
Even if IMGs IP should have something to do with the latter scenario, Eurasia sounds to me like a family of products designed and optimized for PDA/mobile devices with the ability to scale units for other uses, but to expect a mainstream or high end GPU from there sounds way too optimistic for me. Scalability isn't endless and while it should be technically possible I guess IMG would have to design something way more ambitious based on the same architectural foundations.
Highest end SGX is according to IMG's claims 8mm^2@90nm.
OTOH, there is more than one route. . . http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31730
There would be some logic to this in some parts of the business --not so much in others. Intel already killed one decent graphics company by being only interested in serving the other parts of the business. . .
There would be some logic to this in some parts of the business --not so much in others. Intel already killed one decent graphics company by being only interested in serving the other parts of the business. . .
Well they do seem to be upto something. Randi Rost has gone to work for them.
Killer-Kris
Regular
Z303 said:
By the way, I never got a chance to thank you for that little tidbit of information, it seems one of my professors knows Randi Rost pretty well. And apparently Intel has aquired most all of the former 3DLabs team. Take from that what you will.
Killer-Kris
Regular
Urian said:
Well ever since the announcement of being "platform-centric" and VIIV, I think a lot of people have been expecting that.
If Intel locked up ATI and made a videogame console(is this what you guys mean by HD console?), Microsoft and Sony would be limited to Nvidia.
I noticed some time ago the real power in consoles is ATi and Nvidia. They could brand their own consoles and MS and Sony would be relatively powerless.
I noticed some time ago the real power in consoles is ATi and Nvidia. They could brand their own consoles and MS and Sony would be relatively powerless.
Similar threads
