Intel is rumoured to be working on dedicated graphics processors for future G-series

"Arctic Sound" may replace Radeon in future G-series packages.



Read more about Intel's rumoured "Arctic Sound" and "Jupiter Sound" discrete graphics chips.

So it was a quick "in out wipe it on a tea towel" deal. Haven't Intel learned that they just suck at making GPUs?

If they suck, who makes a more power efficient GPU for office and web browser use?

Though I don't expect the earliest discrete GPUs to be good across the board, maybe competitive in Dx12/vulkan tasks against entry level cards, but Dx11 relies heavily on driver optimisation. Then again the Vega GPUs on their NUCs seem to compete with laptop 1060s, and I don't see them pushing a less powerful successor so there's a chance that they'll be interesting.

Vega used to be codenamed Arctic Island.

looz said:

If they suck, who makes a more power efficient GPU for office and web browser use?

Though I don't expect the earliest discrete GPUs to be good across the board, maybe competitive in Dx12/vulkan tasks against entry level cards, but Dx11 relies heavily on driver optimisation. Then again the Vega GPUs on their NUCs seem to compete with laptop 1060s, and I don't see them pushing a less powerful successor so there's a chance that they'll be interesting.

Click to expand...

If you took any modern Nvidia card and cut it down to be as slow as the onboard Intel then it would probably be as efficient, if not more so.

Intel suck at making GPUs. That's not my opinion it's just a fact. If they were good they would not be putting their arch rival's cores on their own custom PCB.

They've tried continually to be good at it and have just sucked.

I also would say that Nvidia could make a GPU as compact and efficient as Intel if they so decided to. But do they really need to? Their market is extremely powerful data centre graphics processors and other compute sectors and of course gaming. None of those sectors benefit from tiny processors. It would make sense for AMD to make a tiny efficient GPU, but not Nvidia. I could be wrong though.

AngryGoldfish said:

I also would say that Nvidia could make a GPU as compact and efficient as Intel if they so decided to. But do they really need to? Their market is extremely powerful data centre graphics processors and other compute sectors and of course gaming. None of those sectors benefit from tiny processors. It would make sense for AMD to make a tiny efficient GPU, but not Nvidia. I could be wrong though.

Click to expand...

AMD has already made it though, with their Vega-M chip for Kaby Lake-G and with their Vega chip within Raven Ridge.

As for Nvidia, they don't really need to make an iGPU replacement chip. They don't want to partner with Intel so replacing Radeon for a future Kaby Lake-G chip won't happen.

Intel hates Nvidia for moving so many workloads to GPUs, which is one of the reasons why Intel is now begrudgingly entering the market. With AMD having good CPUs again they also can't afford to allow having good integrated graphics becoming AMD's major selling point, especially if things on the CPU side get closer.

Long story short is that the world is not as dominated by CPU compute as before, so Intel needs to diversify. The custom AMD chip is just a stepping stone for them.