iSuppli predicts integrated graphics dominance for notebooks

In its latest press release, research group iSuppli proclaims that integrated graphics processors have taken over the notebook market. The firm might have a point, but based on its own data, not for another year or two. According to the press release, only 39% of notebooks sold this year are expected to rely integrated graphics processors. That number is projected to climb to 50% in 2011, 65% in 2012, and as high as 83% in 2014.

iSuppli analyst Matthew Wilkins contends that the popularity of ultraportable notebooks and tablets will drive PC makers to use integrated solutions that consume less power and generate less heat, enabling smaller form factors with better battery life. Of course, those integrated solutions will have to offer reasonably robust graphics capabilities. Gaming performance might not be a must for an ultraportable notebook, but I don’t imagine that consumers will have much patience moving forward for platforms that can’t smoothly play back HD or Flash video content.

What really surprises me about the iSuppli report is that only 39% of notebooks sold this year will have integrated graphics. That’s still a healthy chunk of the market, but it’s not the majority I was expecting. I suspect the popularity of larger notebooks that tend to employ low-end discrete GPUs can be credited—or blamed—for the results.

Comments closed
    • UberGerbil
    • 12 years ago

    Misleading market segmentation FTL.

    • UberGerbil
    • 12 years ago

    Cognitive dissonance is the price of entry into the Apple world. Some things are completely useless and unnecessary until Apple offers one, at which point they become vital and innovative; other things are absolute requirements until Apple does away with them, at which point they’re obsolescent buggy whips. (“We’ve always been at war with eastasia!”)
    If you can’t believe in as many as six impossible things before breakfast you have no business basking in glow of the RDF.

    • UberGerbil
    • 12 years ago

    “100s of little processors” that are still terrible on branchy integer code, which happens to represent most of the work in many (probably most) non-gaming application domains. I’m all for giving CPUs a plethora of execution resources, but they should be a /[

    • MadManOriginal
    • 12 years ago

    Except for Apple fans, they just want whatever Steve-o tells them they should want.

    • Meadows
    • 12 years ago

    Don’t be a smartass, everyone wants both.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 12 years ago

    You, sir, are a moron. Intel’s integrated graphics are perfectly usable for the vast majority of users who couldn’t care less about 3D or gaming graphics performance. Just because NV can’t make a weakass IGP chipset which just provide a form of faster slowness doesn’t mean that the Intel graphics don’t suit the user.

    I find it funny that the Apple fans are also Intel haters…is not having a 9400M chipset on a Mac really that big of a deal?

    • Duck
    • 12 years ago

    Don’t blame Intel. If nvidia was allowed to make chipsets, they would ruin battery life with it. They have since been forced to develop Optimus and we are all better for it.

    • jdaven
    • 12 years ago

    Yes well cpu clocks have not increased appreciably in 5 years. What you really want is IPC increases. Case in point, you would gladly trade your single core 3.8 GHz P4 for any Core 2/Core iX processor at any speed.

    • Meadows
    • 12 years ago

    I do, and my sequential applications do too.

    • jdaven
    • 12 years ago

    Clocks?! Who cares about clocks when you have a hyper-threaded application and 100’s of little processors?

    • Meadows
    • 12 years ago

    Indeed. For Evil Corporation to succeed, all you need is Good Consumers to do nothing about it.

    • Meadows
    • 12 years ago

    No they shouldn’t. Overclocking nightmare.

    • Meadows
    • 12 years ago

    I think Captain Obvious works at iSuppli.

    • flip-mode
    • 12 years ago

    But also, blame consumers that don’t care. Really.

    • adisor19
    • 12 years ago

    NO. Blame intel for forcing the consumer’s hand by prohibiting NVidia and others from making chip sets for their i series of CPUs.

    Adi

    • 5150
    • 12 years ago

    Blame consumers who don’t know better/don’t care.

    • OneArmedScissor
    • 12 years ago

    I don’t know a single person who has a laptop with a graphics card.

    Every single one of our entire company’s laptops have one, regardless of what model it is, though.

    There is no way in hell that, say, Best Buy sells only 40% of laptops with integrated graphics. The way this is phrased can be slightly misleading.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 12 years ago

    This is exactly what they mean.

    l[

    • nstuff
    • 12 years ago

    Agreed. Intel has historically set the bar waaay too low.

    • jdaven
    • 12 years ago

    I think what iSuppli should say is that the lines between GPU and CPU will blur over the coming years starting in the portable personal computer market. No one cares about the distinction. They just want to use the device for the tasks they care about.

    The CPU and GPU should become one!

    • derFunkenstein
    • 12 years ago

    Color me surprised. It seems that 60% of the notebooks on the market right now have integrated graphics. Everywhere you go, you see Intel GMA HD or ATI Radeon 4200 or 4250. Very surprised to see that it’s only 39% of the market.

    Unless somehow they mean on-CPU-package graphics, which I guess 39% makes sense. That mans 39% of notebooks have Core i or Pentium P6000 chips and no other graphics solution. I could get behind that.

    • adisor19
    • 12 years ago

    Blame Intel.

    Adi

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!