My claim was it takes years of time invested to get the software support.
Clearly, if Apple is emulating their competitors systems, they do not have said support. They have not taken the time to create the ecosystem, and thereby their product is inferior.
Your claim that "Very few games that run native on ARM powered Macs" if supports my claim.
If emulating games are a joke, and that is all the m1 has support for with the vast majority of titles, does that not make the m1 a joke?
Care to provide a cherry picked 3rd party example of a game on Apple that outperforms a rtx 3090?
I claimed Apples GPU flopped at meeting its marketing claims. Nothing in your quoted statement indicates otherwise.
...If emulating games are a joke, and that is all the m1 has support for with the vast majority of titles, does that not make the m1 a joke?...
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.
No vendor that was compute only survives in the long run. Enterprise-only is a cop out. Consumer market is more demanding that's why you survive there you can take that to enterprise.
Even in CPUs with the core count increase the focus is more and more on the 2P and even single processor systems. Enterprise will continue to exist but volume is not there for continued advancement.
Simply stated: Server only GPU = Death of dGPU market.
If Pat is worth his salt as a leader as he was in previous positions, then sticking to client dGPUs would be a start, because it's almost Intel tradition to quit when things get little hard.
That said, BK became CEO in May of 2013, yet problems didn't materialize for a while. Fixing is way harder than breaking, yet problems didn't show externally for a few years. So his career involved Haswell, Broadwell, and Skylake launch then the disaster struck.
Late 2014, 14nm delay may be attributed partly to him. This means 2023 is when we'll get to see how Gelsinger's team really did. Though even critics like Charlie Demerjian is saying the leadership is "strong".
For reasons including yours I believe this rumor of Intel giving up on Arc is false. I'm pretty sure Intel knows it needs a GPU if it is to thrive in the future. It would be foolish to give up without going through at least a few generations. They sure kept pushing Itanium. Things are quite different today, however, and that is hardly a good comparison.
Maybe it was unstated by me but I think gaming drivers comparable to AMD & Nvidia is the issue. This a hard costly long path. Sure they will continue with igp development for their CPUs but a lower level of game compatibility can be excused more easily there. What I see them dropping is the discrete GPU gaming market. Catching up to the leaders is a multi billion affair, and for what. Outside of consoles, this might be the least profitable use of silicon when you add driver game optimization costs & developer relations, etc.No vendor that was compute only survives in the long run. Enterprise-only is a cop out. Consumer market is more demanding that's why you survive there you can take that to enterprise.
Even in CPUs with the core count increase the focus is more and more on the 2P and even single processor systems. Enterprise will continue to exist but volume is not there for continued advancement by itself.
Simply stated: Server only GPU = Death of dGPU market.
If Pat is worth his salt as a leader as he was in previous positions, then sticking to client dGPUs would be a start, because it's almost Intel tradition to quit when things get little hard.
That said, BK became CEO in May of 2013, yet problems didn't materialize for a while. Fixing is way harder than breaking, yet problems didn't show externally for a few years. So his career involved Haswell, Broadwell, and Skylake launch then the disaster struck.
Late 2014, 14nm delay may be attributed partly to him. This means 2023 is when we'll get to see how Gelsinger's team really did. Though even critics like Charlie Demerjian is saying the leadership is "strong".
Maybe it was unstated by me but I think gaming drivers comparable to AMD & Nvidia is the issue.
This was posted a few pages back. Think about the amateurish thinking in this answer. With this attitude, wow. Now they realize it. Even the throw out statement sounds insulting after what they did not do. "We have to be competitive on design timelines."Seems so, but it's still inexcusable. Including iGPUs, Intel has been in the graphics biz for a long, long time. Why weren't drivers in place ages ago?
Drivers cost money. Shareholders want money. Shareholders don't want drivers.Why weren't drivers in place ages ago?
An Intel GPU is like an umbrella that sprays water on your head.
I just don't get this. Why was Koduri brought on, if not to solve these issues from his experience. Drivers make or break GPUs, just ask AMD and Nvidia PR. No matter what, AMD always has the "bad drivers" stigma and it cost them mindshare and obviously market share. Anyone with minimal experience should have known that the drivers would be a vital component to the success of ARC.This was posted a few pages back. Think about the amateurish thinking in this answer. With this attitude, wow. Now they realize it. Even the throw out statement sounds insulting after what they did not do. "We have to be competitive on design timelines."
That's the real question for I would have never hired him and it likely was a mistake as his focus seems to be playing stupid power games.I just don't get this. Why was Koduri brought on,
Yes, this is the point I made a while ago when the driver team started getting blamed: if the hardware is a moving target, if features promised don't work/are a lot slower than promisied, etc. Well, then the driver team has an impossible task.That's the real question for I would have never hired him and it likely was a mistake as his focus seems to be playing stupid power games.
Just blaming drivers seems like an easy scapegoat. If the driver team or in fact any software team works against moving goalpost the software in the end will be medicore at best if not outright unusuable regardless on how much money you throw at it. Software is the one thing that simply doesn't scale with number of workers especially complex software where having that one genius will matter if it works or not.
Changing goalpost here can be changes in hardware, bugs in hardware or firmware things. it can also be wrong simulations on how fast something will work and then if your software is based on that but then it is waaaay slower you might need to rewrite entire parts. (why does ARC depend so much on rebar?)
Re: Intel power games: it now looks even more suspicious that the blame the driver team narrative came out recently - if that came from the head of the hardware team to pre-emptively deflect blame... Well no wonder Intel is in a mess then as that would imply that the head of drivers should have spent less time working on drivers and more time also playing "stupid" power games as without those stupid games they'll carry the can and the hardware chief gets to carry on.
Re: Intel power games: it now looks even more suspicious that the blame the driver team narrative came out recently - if that came from the head of the hardware team to pre-emptively deflect blame... Well no wonder Intel is in a mess then as that would imply that the head of drivers should have spent less time working on drivers and more time also playing "stupid" power games as without those stupid games they'll carry the can and the hardware chief gets to carry on.
(why does ARC depend so much on rebar?)
Tell that to my kids. They game exclusively on iOS (iPads) devices.What I don't really understand why it is so important to compare it with a high end PC gaming card. If you buy an Apple product, gaming is most likely not your primary, secondary or tertiary reason.
Maybe it was unstated by me but I think gaming drivers comparable to AMD & Nvidia is the issue. This a hard costly long path. Sure they will continue with igp development for their CPUs but a lower level of game compatibility can be excused more easily there. What I see them dropping is the discrete GPU gaming market. Catching up to the leaders is a multi billion affair, and for what. Outside of consoles, this might be the least profitable use of silicon when you add driver game optimization costs & developer relations, etc.
There is a reason that AMD neglected their GPUs when they were far behind and had to prioritize expenditures. What we might not be realizing is that Intel could be entering some dark years AND starting way behind in drivers. At least AMD had the use of existing good driver code to use and build on and even then they struggled with issues, until recently.
Sure, my comment was regarding Apple laptops/desktops, not iOS devices.Tell that to my kids. They game exclusively on iOS (iPads) devices.
AppleTV also plays games.
Yes, this is the point I made a while ago when the driver team started getting blamed: if the hardware is a moving target, if features promised don't work/are a lot slower than promisied, etc. Well, then the driver team has an impossible task.
Re: Intel power games: it now looks even more suspicious that the blame the driver team narrative came out recently - if that came from the head of the hardware team to pre-emptively deflect blame... Well no wonder Intel is in a mess then as that would imply that the head of drivers should have spent less time working on drivers and more time also playing "stupid" power games as without those stupid games they'll carry the can and the hardware chief gets to carry on.
That review is the definition of superfluous. It brought zero new info, and he yet again displayed how out of touch he is with the gaming community. Particularly the low budget segment.
I was going to pursue a similar line of thought. The comment about Intel's biggest issue, immediately made me think that it has nothing to do with the competition. It is that they have121,000+ employees, and there is infighting among the different divisions. If the graphics division is gaslighting others with their presentations, that is really bad juju. And we have been hearing for years they have fallen into the same problem the old IBM had. I.E. too many toxic higher ups running the company into the ground.And as I recall, isn't Raja supposed to be in charge of BOTH sides? You cannot have two teams playing the blame game on each other. That's a terrible culture to have to work in.
Ok hm, things can always be much worse.
I think it's due to the driver's iGPU heritage. Recent Intel iGPUs have access to the CPU's L3, so communication between them is probably memory based already.
That review is the definition of superfluous. It brought zero new info, and he yet again displayed how out of touch he is with the gaming community. Particularly the low budget segment.
Says he'd take a chance on it v. 6400 because he doesn't play old games and it has hardware media support. He is also one of the channels pretending like the 1630 doesn't exist; wonder why that is? He loves taking shots at the 6400 though. Then he begrudgingly admits it is good for LP purposes. What do you think we are buying it for Steve?!? And of course, to further demonstrate his complete lack of realistic perspective, he recommends Polaris...again. With all its flaws, I'd still risk $125 or so on ARC well before putting $100 into a ragged out RX570.
His opinions are bad, and he should feel bad.