Not sure, but it doesn't use an extra 17watts when not transcoding and just sitting there like an Arc card does.
Anyway, there are some rumors that newer drivers will improve the poor idle power consumption.
17W vs how much does your processor eat when transcoding?
I hope Gelsinger isn't so short sighted as to cancel GPUs. They have potential, and we need a third player.
I share the same concern as many others. That being, buying Intel dGPUs and a year or 2 from now having driver support abandoned. While I might risk my own money anyways, I would not spec them in clients builds.
Many of us have quipped about how Intel abandons new markets far too readily. Combine that with the Q2 results, serous market contraction, and high probability of a looming global recession, and suddenly, Intel scaling the division way back starts sounding reasonable. They have proved time and again the sunk cost fallacy won't make them double down when things are going south.
They are rumored to be abandoning the gamer market and I thought he claimed that Intel will stay in GPU compute market. That makes a lot of sense to me.That rumor came from a terrible Youtuber. You even linked him.
Intel is not planning to cancel their GPUs.
You should stop watching that garbage. I'm serious. RGT is nearly always wrong and most of the stories they share are fabricated. I use "most" to be pleasant and understanding.
I normally don't put myself on the line like this, but Intel would cease selling CPUs before they cancelled GPUs. Margins in the enterprise GPU market are far higher than the x86 CPU market.
You really think TSMC will still have the freedom to price as they want? If Nvidia and Intel can't sell enough product, they might be forced to write off some loss due to smaller wafer use from reduced sales. It'll be cheaper than producing excess stock.It's not going to be profitable if they insist on fabbing at TSMC. TSMC's price hikes only make the situation worse since unlike nVidia and AMD you can't justify hiking next gen GPU prices as well.
You really think TSMC will still have the freedom to price as they want
It's not going to be profitable if they insist on fabbing at TSMC. TSMC's price hikes only make the situation worse since unlike nVidia and AMD you can't justify hiking next gen GPU prices as well.
Just look at how many draw calls 1650 manages in DX12. Literally no contest!The big problem performance related is clearly the big driver overhead, they have to improve a lot on this.
They aren't planning to use TSMC long term. This always only made sense as a big 10 year gamble - invest the billions in bringing up their GPU hardware designs, hardware and software teams, build up the drivers, build up the ecosystem and market. Then by the time Intel has a process good enough to compete with TSMC, their GPU team is ready to fire on all cylinders.
If Intel cuts and runs now, they've wasted that opportunity.
They are rumored to be abandoning the gamer market and I thought he claimed that Intel will stay in GPU compute market. That makes a lot of sense to me.
But tbf it leaked out before the earnings report.The insider info about "Intel may or may not abandon dGPU market altogether" just happens to leak out on a day Intel announced a bad quarter results sounds too convenient to me.
With Intel, Nvidia and almost certainly soon to be Apple having less demand for the latest nodes? Amazing.Yes. Especially at the leading edge.
As I wrote, it's the gaming market, not GPU compute. Gaming is a lot more costly to become competitive in, versus compute, plus margins are a lot lower for gaming and very high for compute. A CEO would certainly see this as a good option.The insider info about "Intel may or may not abandon dGPU market altogether" just happens to leak out on a day Intel announced a bad quarter results sounds too convenient to me.
With Intel, Nvidia and almost certainly soon to be Apple having less demand for the latest nodes? Amazing.
I might have a use for one for my Intel 12400F DeskMeet rig, currently have a BNIB RX 6500 XT 4GB card slated for that rig, but I wonder about DP 2.0 and AV1 decode / encode.I can't even buy an Arc card?
I wanted an A380 as a collectible at least.
As I wrote, it's the gaming market, not GPU compute. Gaming is a lot more costly to become competitive in, versus compute, plus margins are a lot lower for gaming and very high for compute. A CEO would certainly see this as a good option.
Nvidia wanted to cut orders, TSMC said "NOPE. You signed a contract for X wafers at Y dollars. Look, at best we'll simply delay production of your stuff by a quarter. That's it. If you can't accept that, then you gotta find someone who will buy your wafers off of you".If anything, with the way things are going, Intel is going to be using TSMC more and more. And AFAIK nVidia wanted to shift production a quarter and not necessarily cut orders.
Various media had again written or spoken about a delay, but Intel is said to have now internally decided on a narrower time frame. If they’re going to stick to the current timeframe, the range that’s being colocated to me now is between Aug. 05, 2022 and Sept. 29, 2022.
Sounds about right. I bet they launch once they have the obvious driver bugs ironed out. It would be pretty bad if it wouldn't run benchmarked games reliably. Newest beta fixed a lot so they are definitely getting closer.According to a report from igorslab the Arc launch timeframe has been narrowed down to Aug 5 - Sept 29.
Possible "launch date" for Intel’s ARC A5xx and A7xx graphics cards leaked | Exclusive | igor´sLAB
Are they coming, or aren’t they? And if so, when? Various media had again written or spoken about a delay, but Intel is said to have now internally decided on a narrower time frame. If they’re going…www.igorslab.de
If customers like Nvidia and Intel happened to order a specific amount of wafers from TSMC for a specific price, it's up to those customers to fulfill their side of the contract (pay the cost) even if at a later point they no longer need TSMC's side of the contract (deliver the wafers) anymore.You really think TSMC will still have the freedom to price as they want? If Nvidia and Intel can't sell enough product, they might be forced to write off some loss due to smaller wafer use from reduced sales. It'll be cheaper than producing excess stock.
Just like the past few yrs were abnormally high in demand and price we're entering a new opposite economic reality.Some companies might be thankful to sell at cost or barely above, just to maintain their operational layout for when we emerge from this period.
Years end will show for sure.
Yes, what I said.If customers like Nvidia and Intel happened to order a specific amount of wafers from TSMC for a specific price, it's up to those customers to fulfill their side of the contract (pay the cost) even if at a later point they no longer need TSMC's side of the contract (deliver the wafers) anymore.
Your text made it sound like it's TSMC's problem when it isn't. In this case TSMC not only can dictate the price as long as there is sufficient demand (recent earnings call reinforced there is), it can earn on top due to also getting money for contract breaches while freeing wafers for other paying customers.Yes, what I said.