WhatMeWorry wrote:Just hypothetically thinking here; but if Intel's IGP technology, the IRIS Pro 5200, were spun off and scaled to size of a typical AMD or NVIDIA gpu, would it be competitive with them?
jihadjoe wrote:I dunno. Feel like I'd rather see a really big GPU from AMD or Nvidia manufactured on Intel's process tech.
Airmantharp wrote:The way I see it is this- Intel has all of the IP that they'd need in order to tweak their current graphics technology into a state that could then be properly scaled up to compete with AMD and Nvidia's top offerings, should they choose to do so.
Airmantharp wrote:But I don't see the incentive for them to do that. They don't really have the incentive to fab their competitors CPUs or GPUs either- Intel is likely not very interested in making 'toys', and their 'tools' such as the Xeon Phi compete directly with the higher-end GPUs for the compute market.
Airmantharp wrote:As for foundry costs etc- Intel will have to become TSMC/UMC/TI/etc. if they want that business, but they very likely don't. There's far less margin in making competitor's products better. They're better off making great Xeon Phi's than making great Teslas.
Airmantharp wrote:All I'm saying is that if they get to the point that their fabbing other companies' designs, it means that they've patently failed with their own designs .
Kougar wrote:Fair point. But, do you think Intel would consider making chips for Apple possibly? Like, my thinking was that Intel makes chips for everything. Processors, Phi, iGPs, chipsets, networking and IO controllers, RAID, even NAND. They're trying to compete in everything from big iron down to smartphone SoCs, so technically most companies could be an indirect competitor. Fun to theorize about anyway.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests