You can't talk about intel's slide show projector without talking about CPU's. Their graphics marketshare is without a doubt due to their CPU marketshare. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make regarding discrete GPU's.
Remember MS changed their minimum specs on Vista so intel could sell something, which again has nothing to do with technical merits but monopoly powers.
It has 2.5x more EU's and those EU's are improved too.GT3 won't be THAT much faster than GT2 version since the clock is way down. Still it will have better perf./watt which is what intel wanted from the start.
Let me ask more directly:
Why are more people choosing to use only Intel Slide Show Projector© on their instead of asking OEMs or retailers some wonderful Nvidia or AMD dGPU?
Are people getting more stupid and not seeing how awful Intel graphics are and then not buying dGPUs, or is Intel Slide Show Projector© improving to the point of some people are already deciding to go without dGPU?
BTW, market share =! attach rates
Laugh at 'choosing'. 'Force fed' seems more appropriate.
If you recall, intel has had the graphics share lead for many many years. How do you account for intel's slide show projector retaining the marketshare lead for all those years? Hint: it has nothing to do with technical capabilities.
It had everything to do with technical capabilities.
Various markets didn't require any more technical capability than Intel was putting in.
It is no good producing more than the market will bare, if that ends up sending you bankrupt and you are no longer around.
In 2 years or less, you will get a keen reminder of Intel's wise decisions vs the folly of others.
You mean Vista didn't require a more capable GPU from intel??? That's an odd thing to say considering MS had to lower spec requirments so intel could participate. Naw, let's cut the BS here, the market got what intel could give them, not what it required.
MS had to lower spec requirements so that MS could see more copies of Vista.
You keep getting that mixed up and making yourself look foolish.
A product can always come out ahead of the market, look at Crysis for example, but in due course, the necessary improvements get made, as Intel showed with their constant improvement of their IGP.
But of course with Vista being a poor seller for Microsoft, it indicates that they suffered for getting ahead of what the market wanted or needed.
When Microsoft got it right with Windows 7, Intel's IGP was there to help them make great sales numbers.
MS had to lower spec requirements so that MS could sell more copies of Vista.
You've always looked foolish, nothing new there.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the motivation of MS and their setting of spec requirements, had anything to do with helping out Intel.MS had to lower spec requirements so intel could participate AND sell more copies of Vista. Happy?
The fact of the matter is, intel's GPU's didn't meet minimum spec, i'm not sure why you are trying to debate that. lol
And that get's back to the matter at hand, why do intel's graphics suck so badly? With all those resources one would think they would be capable of giving the market what it requires instead of the market having to make compromises.
Blame MS for Intel's craptastic graphics, you're a funny guy. :thumbsup:
Laugh at 'choosing'. 'Force fed' seems more appropriate.
If you recall, intel has had the graphics share lead for many many years. How do you account for intel's slide show projector retaining the marketshare lead for all those years? Hint: it has nothing to do with technical capabilities. They went from still frame photography to slide show projector and are still an anchor to progress and innovation.
snip
Intel is giving the market what it needs, that is why Intel rakes in billions of dollars of profit and AMD have made a Net Loss, over their entire lifetime.
snip
Again, if intel is giving the market what it needs, why did MS have to lower minimum specs? The specs weren't lowered to match AMD's capabilities, which were clearly capable of meeting the prior specs, but to match intel's capabilities which a hard enough time rendering the MS logo (perhaps that's why MS incorporated a flat, 2D logo for Win8, it's intel comatible!). Simple as that, sorry if it doesn't jive with your agenda it's the facts.
Again, if intel is giving the market what it needs, why did MS have to lower minimum specs? The specs weren't lowered to match AMD's capabilities, which were clearly capable of meeting the prior specs, but to match intel's capabilities which a hard enough time rendering the MS logo (perhaps that's why MS incorporated a flat, 2D logo for Win8, it's intel comatible!). Simple as that, sorry if it doesn't jive with your agenda it's the facts.
You must be chocked, not having won it this year.
What does prevent someone that is not happy with the gpu performance of intel igps from buying a discrete card? That's right, noyhing. And yet most people don't go discrete. Why, if Intdl sucks big time
Instead of tapdance, answer the question.
I thought this was true, what piesquared is saying, that MS lowered the spec for Intel's benefit in the final hour because it turned out that Intel couldn't get their drivers functional at the time as needed to enable workarounds on what turned out to be buggy/disfunctional GPU hardware that Intel had been shipping for months to OEMs under the auspices of it being "Vista upgradeable/compatible".
Wasn't there some big huge lawsuit against MS or Intel over this? To the tune of $100m or more?
When Intel's 14nm desktop chips come out, they will almost certainly take the IGP lead away from AMD, what will you do then? Cry?