Funny there's no Rogue/Intel announcement yet; the absence of it would be a real surprise.
I'd be surprised to see one.
There have only ever been 2 formal announcements from IMG relating to Intel.
one was 10 years ago for MBX that was initially used in the 2700G companion chip.
The other was 5 years ago and was basically a "catch-all" allowing IMG to satisfy the requirements of the stock market, and also providing a situation where cores licenced by Intel would not actually be announced.
IMG have subsequently referred to some Intel chips containing their I/P, but only after Intel have launched the chip and formally identified the I/P, or that it has come out from some other source.
For example we know that Intel have used 535, 545 and at least 2 VXD cores and 1 VXE core, but to this day the exact video cores have never been disclosed.
This is almost exactly the same scenario as with Apple, again 1 catch-all announcement and then nothing else. In fact as far as I am aware, IMG have never confirmed the cores used by Apple, and other than the graphics drivers being identifible, neither has Apple, and again the video cores being used are not acknowledged.
So if Intel does license Rogue, I'd be surprised to here about it until a physical chip is close to being manufactured.
Having said that, given we've now had 5 licence announcements in 2 weeks, including 2 that specifically include Rogue, anything is possible !
To get this thread a *bit* more back on topic, I was reminded today of the following presentation from exactly 1 year ago:-
http://armnews.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/arm-analyst-day-2010-full-report/
the following points bear reflection 1 year later:-
"ARM sees the deal between Texas Instruments and Imagination Technologies as a setback to their GPU aspirations (announced yesterday)."
This referred to TI announcing they would be mating SGX544 to the A15 cores in their new Omap5 family, and not Mali-400 or T604. Even though TI was a lead partner in the design process of the A15. I would assume ARM would have been fighting even harder to get T-604 into OMAP6, as I imagine OMAP5 might have been too tight a timeframe for them. It has to therefore be considered a bigger setback not to have won any of the multiple graphics seats that were available for Omap6.
"....no Mali deals have been lost due to lack of performance. They have been down to cost of switching GPU provider"
Well, we've had fujitsu recently take a PowerVr licence, when there was no previous 3rd party supplier (they used their own in-house stuff), so when the cost to switch was equal, they chose PowerVr.
But we've also had LG "switch" to IMG after they took a mali licence, and we've had ST drop ARM's graphics in favour of IMG's rogue for their top end A9600 when there was no previous relationship with IMG, so EVEN when there is cost involved in switching from Mali, these semis are seeing the cost as well worth while.
So for me, the above quote will have to go down as marketing rather than relecting the real state of play.
