x86watch.com survey: Intel graphics

  • Thread starter Thread starter mbcrothers
  • Start date Start date
M

mbcrothers

I edit x86watch (http://www.x86watch.com) and would like some feedback
on Intel graphics...First, some background...Intel held about 40
percent of the PC desktop "graphics device" market in Q3 '06, according
to Jon Peddie Research. Its nearest competitor is ATI, which has a 23
percent (approx.) market share (Q3 '06). Yes, I know, Intel graphics
(e.g., 915, 950) is "integrated" not discrete like most of the graphics
solutions from ATI and Nvidia. Nevertheless, Intel graphics "chips"
ship with tens of millions of PCs every year. So...

My question: What is your opinion of Intel graphics? Is the x3000
graphics in Intel's G965 chipset a big improvement?

I would appreciate any feedback, however brief.

Brooke Crothers
 
I edit x86watch (http://www.x86watch.com) and would like some feedback
on Intel graphics...First, some background...Intel held about 40
percent of the PC desktop "graphics device" market in Q3 '06, according
to Jon Peddie Research. Its nearest competitor is ATI, which has a 23
percent (approx.) market share (Q3 '06). Yes, I know, Intel graphics
(e.g., 915, 950) is "integrated" not discrete like most of the graphics
solutions from ATI and Nvidia. Nevertheless, Intel graphics "chips"
ship with tens of millions of PCs every year. So...

My question: What is your opinion of Intel graphics? Is the x3000
graphics in Intel's G965 chipset a big improvement?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. In absolute terms, it is a big improvement over the
graphics from the G915 and the earlier 865G chipsets. On the other
hand, it's really not an improvement in practical terms. The old
graphics were perfectly good for 2D work, especially for your
bog-standard business computer (which is where the bulk of that "40%"
number comes from), so no real improvement there.

The problems with the older graphics were that they stunk for 3D stuff
when compared to the competition. While the x3000 graphics took a
step forward in this regard (maybe twice as fast), they still stink as
compared to the competition which has also moved forward. Even a $50
add-in card will easily outpace the x3000 in any sort of 3D work. And
while they're closer to nVidia and ATI's integrated graphics, they
still aren't on par. So, despite the improvement, really it's more
status quo than anything else.

That being said, there are two points of note forthe X3000. First is
that it should handle Windows Vista's Aero interface, while the
previous generation of Intel graphics will not. This probably won't
win new sales, but rather it will prevent the loss in sales if it
hadn't supported Aero. Of course, exact performance in Vista is still
a matter of some speculation, so we'll have to wait a few months to
see how this plays out. Secondly is the improved support for TV
output, including HD support This is useful for the home theater
market (admittedly a fairly small segment) which previous would have
probably required an add-in video card. This might gain Intel an
extra percent or two of sales.
 
Tony said:
That being said, there are two points of note forthe X3000. First is
that it should handle Windows Vista's Aero interface, while the
previous generation of Intel graphics will not. This probably won't
win new sales, but rather it will prevent the loss in sales if it
hadn't supported Aero. Of course, exact performance in Vista is still
a matter of some speculation, so we'll have to wait a few months to
see how this plays out. Secondly is the improved support for TV
output, including HD support This is useful for the home theater
market (admittedly a fairly small segment) which previous would have
probably required an add-in video card. This might gain Intel an
extra percent or two of sales.
Click to expand...

Good points. Though I believe there is some pretty solid anecdotal
evidence that the gma 950 will run aero. Here:
and here:
http://www.pcmech.com/show/kudos/919/

Yes, a $50 add-in card will outrun the x3000's 3D but just having very
basic, very-low-cost 3D capability already built in is too tempting for
many PC makers (remember the Intel "Extreme Graphics" logo)--and the
market-share numbers bear this out.
 
Back
Top