Standard Inquirer bull or something potentially interesting?

[asicnewbie]

AFAIK they wouldn't even accept to license graphics IP without drivers.

I might be misreading your sentence, but I think the pressure is from licensees. Most licensees require complex IP-cores (such as 3D-graphics) to include working device-drivers. In general, a 'register-level' specification/datasheet is necessary but insufficient for third-parties to write efficient, optimized API device-drivers in a reasonable timeframe. And equally important, the existence of API-compliant drivers allows licensees run application sims, toverify the core works (at a hardware implementation level.) Naturally, there are probably other reasons, too, I'm not aware of.

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.

Good point, the Intel 2700G incorporates a PowerVR MBX (or was it MBX Lite?) core.

Highest end SGX is according to IMG's claims 8mm^2@90nm.

According to Imgtec's investor-presentation, they've got bigger plans for the SGX family.

 

[amk]

Good point, the Intel 2700G incorporates a PowerVR MBX (or was it MBX Lite?) core.

MBX Lite.

According to Imgtec's investor-presentation, they've got bigger plans for the SGX family.

Linkage: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31005