AMD's quarterly earnings report - operating loss of 49 million and net loss of 102 million USD

[MageTank]

So what you're saying is you've run out of arguments and are resorting to ad hominem.

 

Also amusing to see you trying to pass off personal experience as hard evidence, whereas my actual hard evidence is dismissed out of hand because it doesn't fit your views.

When did i say my personal experience was hard evidence? I said each and every time that it was my personal experience. I also mentioned that in some cases, it would be my GPU or graphical settings causing stutters. You were the one that said personal experience does not count as a proper source. Yet you post a review site, which is nothing more than someone else's personal experience. How does that make any sense? Would you feel better if i rented a website, drew up some graphs, and posted my results in that fashion? Would it give my evidence any more credibility? You also dismiss video evidence of people having the exact same problem as me, for what reason? "They are not credible". You never explained why. Your entire strategy in this argument is to avoid any questions, and keep demanding I answer yours. 

 

You've failed to point out where you asked me for a source for my claims that I could not produce. Whenever you asked for a source, i gave it to you. I gave you multiple sources too, not just one. Face it, you are completely out of answers here. I proved that your original point is nonsense, and even used Intel to prove it. Now you are trying to dissect my posts and argue tiny points within them, while ignoring the global context of my previous posts. If that does not show a defeated man, I don't know what does. 

[Sakkura]

When did i say my personal experience was hard evidence? I said each and every time that it was my personal experience. I also mentioned that in some cases, it would be my GPU or graphical settings causing stutters. You were the one that said personal experience does not count as a proper source. Yet you post a review site, which is nothing more than someone else's personal experience. How does that make any sense? Would you feel better if i rented a website, drew up some graphs, and posted my results in that fashion? Would it give my evidence any more credibility? You also dismiss video evidence of people having the exact same problem as me, for what reason? "They are not credible". You never explained why. Your entire strategy in this argument is to avoid any questions, and keep demanding I answer yours. 

 

You've failed to point out where you asked me for a source for my claims that I could not produce. Whenever you asked for a source, i gave it to you. I gave you multiple sources too, not just one. Face it, you are completely out of answers here. I proved that your original point is nonsense, and even used Intel to prove it. Now you are trying to dissect my posts and argue tiny points within them, while ignoring the global context of my previous posts. If that does not show a defeated man, I don't know what does. 

 

I provided hard evidence, and you dismissed that out of hand based on your personal experience. And no, a review is not just personal experience.

 

I dismissed random youtube videos precisely because they are not reliable reviews.

 

I have not failed to point out anything. I have demonstrated that you have not provided reliable sources for your claims, and that your sources frequently disagree with you. I'm not the one who's out of answers here, it's you - that's why you felt compelled to resort to ad hominem.

[MageTank]

I provided hard evidence, and you dismissed that out of hand based on your personal experience. And no, a review is not just personal experience.

 

I dismissed random youtube videos precisely because they are not reliable reviews.

 

I have not failed to point out anything. I have demonstrated that you have not provided reliable sources for your claims, and that your sources frequently disagree with you. I'm not the one who's out of answers here, it's you - that's why you felt compelled to resort to ad hominem.

I don't believe you quite understand the definition of "Ad Hominem". I have yet to attack you personally. I've only attacked the nonsense that you post. Believe me friend. If i wanted to attack you as a person, I could do a whole lot better than calling your words "nonsense". 

 

So let me get this straight, so that my feeble mind can understand it. None of my sources are valid or reliable? Wikipedia listing 168 pentiums (Proving that 99% of all Pentiums is not the G3258) is just fabricated? The two people in those youtube videos and myself are the only ones that lag on GTA 5 because your source with a fancy graph says otherwise? The G3258 isn't marketed as a multimedia/education/office CPU even though Intel themselves say so? Is Intel not a valid source to the argument at hand? Or is it you that is guilty of informal fallacy's in this thread? After all, you straw man'd my quote where i asked for sources. You deliberately went through every post that did not have a hyperlink, even though the context clearly stated to find posts where YOU asked for a source, and i failed to produce one. You were the one grasping for straws, because the original argument was that the Pentium lineup is not budget gaming CPU's, nor are they marketed as such. I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt by providing the ultimate source, Intel themselves.

 

Yet you carry on picking out tiny pieces of my words without even reading the full extent of them. It's fine though. I don't mind being the one pressed to provide sources 24/7. After all, every claim i make can be backed up several times over with different sources. You however, have no sources to your original point. You've yet to prove to me that the G3258 is marketed as a budget gaming CPU by Intel. I even asked you to do so. However, you ignore these requests on purpose, because you know it would put an end to this. Either you really like me, or you can't stand the thought of being wrong. You are either going to be extremely happy that I am stubborn, or extremely annoyed. The good news is, the outcome is the same either way for me. 

[Sakkura]

I don't believe you quite understand the definition of "Ad Hominem". I have yet to attack you personally. I've only attacked the nonsense that you post. Believe me friend. If i wanted to attack you as a person, I could do a whole lot better than calling your words "nonsense". 

 

So let me get this straight, so that my feeble mind can understand it. None of my sources are valid or reliable? Wikipedia listing 168 pentiums (Proving that 99% of all Pentiums is not the G3258) is just fabricated? The two people in those youtube videos and myself are the only ones that lag on GTA 5 because your source with a fancy graph says otherwise? The G3258 isn't marketed as a multimedia/education/office CPU even though Intel themselves say so? Is Intel not a valid source to the argument at hand? Or is it you that is guilty of informal fallacy's in this thread? After all, you straw man'd my quote where i asked for sources. You deliberately went through every post that did not have a hyperlink, even though the context clearly stated to find posts where YOU asked for a source, and i failed to produce one. You were the one grasping for straws, because the original argument was that the Pentium lineup is not budget gaming CPU's, nor are they marketed as such. I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt by providing the ultimate source, Intel themselves.

 

Yet you carry on picking out tiny pieces of my words without even reading the full extent of them. It's fine though. I don't mind being the one pressed to provide sources 24/7. After all, every claim i make can be backed up several times over with different sources. You however, have no sources to your original point. You've yet to prove to me that the G3258 is marketed as a budget gaming CPU by Intel. I even asked you to do so. However, you ignore these requests on purpose, because you know it would put an end to this. Either you really like me, or you can't stand the thought of being wrong. You are either going to be extremely happy that I am stubborn, or extremely annoyed. The good news is, the outcome is the same either way for me. 

 

Just calling stuff nonsense is not a valid argument.

 

The Wikipedia source does not address the claim and thus doesn't back anything up. As I've told you multiple times, it's not about the number of models.

[MageTank]

Just calling stuff nonsense is not a valid argument.

 

The Wikipedia source does not address the claim and thus doesn't back anything up. As I've told you multiple times, it's not about the number of models.

You can't be the one to make the claim that it's not about the number of models. I was the one that said "99% of all pentiums are not the G3258". It was in the context that one single pentium, out of 168, does not define what the pentium lineup is sold as. Why do you feel you have the right to tell me what I meant by my own words? 

 

Notice how yet again, you ignored the part where i asked you to prove Intel themselves market the G3258 as a budget gaming CPU? It's your turn to provide the source sir. 

[Tomsen]

@MageTank

Lets not kid ourselves.

 

Of course Intel positioned the G3258 as a entry level gaming unit for enthusiast.

If it actually is a good gaming chip, is a whole other matter.

[Sakkura]

You can't be the one to make the claim that it's not about the number of models. I was the one that said "99% of all pentiums are not the G3258". It was in the context that one single pentium, out of 168, does not define what the pentium lineup is sold as. Why do you feel you have the right to tell me what I meant by my own words? 

 

Notice how yet again, you ignored the part where i asked you to prove Intel themselves market the G3258 as a budget gaming CPU? It's your turn to provide the source sir. 

 

You came up with the 99% claim in response to my assertion that the G3258 is a high-profile SKU compared to other Pentiums out there, with explicit reference to the number of sold chips (rather than the number of models). Even if your 99% claim were to stand (despite your own sources disagreeing with you on that point), it doesn't change the point you were originally objecting to.

[MageTank]

You came up with the 99% claim in response to my assertion that the G3258 is a high-profile SKU compared to other Pentiums out there, with explicit reference to the number of sold chips (rather than the number of models). Even if your 99% claim were to stand (despite your own sources disagreeing with you on that point), it doesn't change the point you were originally objecting to.

Pretty sure i said 99% of Pentiums are not the G3258, because you said Pentiums are gaming chips. Especially the G3258. Me saying 99% of pentiums are not the G3258 is correct. I even provided the wikipedia source showing 168 different Pentiums. That source is valid, is it not? 

 

Also, you once again ignored my plea to provide a source where Intel themselves advertised the G3258 as a budget gaming CPU.

 

 

@MageTank

Lets not kid ourselves.

 

Ofc course Intel positioned the G3258 as a entry level gaming unit for enthusiast.

If it actually is a good gaming chip, is a whole other matter.

I don't believe they did. They called it the Anniversary Edition for a reason. It is to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Pentium lineup. They unlocked it as a treat for people to play around with it.

 

Can it play games? Yes. It can play a vast majority of games. I am willing to say it can play up to 95% of the current titles available on PC. However, I cannot call it a gaming CPU, even a budget one, if some games flat out fail to run on it. I have not met a AAA title yet that did not run on my budget gaming GPU's (My 9800GT still plays the latest AAA titles on low settings).

 

You will not find a single post by me claiming that the G3258 cannot play games. I have used it for over a year as my primary driver, and even bought another pentium afterwards (G4400) so I have no ill will against pentiums in general. However, my point stands. Intel does not market the Pentium lineup as budget gaming CPU's. Therefore, you cannot expect them to put a budget gaming iGPU on them. 

[Sakkura]

Pretty sure i said 99% of Pentiums are not the G3258, because you said Pentiums are gaming chips. Especially the G3258. Me saying 99% of pentiums are not the G3258 is correct. I even provided the wikipedia source showing 168 different Pentiums. That source is valid, is it not? 

 

Also, you once again ignored my plea to provide a source where Intel themselves advertised the G3258 as a budget gaming CPU.

 

Yeah, and I was explicitly referring to the number of sold chips. If you're saying you were offering a red herring with the number of models, then okay... but that's still just a red herring. And the source you provided for your claim about number of models disagreed with you.

 

I don't need to source anything when it's already established that the G3258 is an overclocking-oriented CPU, and I have explained that overclocking is associated with gaming.

[MageTank]

Yeah, and I was explicitly referring to the number of sold chips. If you're saying you were offering a red herring with the number of models, then okay... but that's still just a red herring. And the source you provided for your claim about number of models disagreed with you.

 

I don't need to source anything when it's already established that the G3258 is an overclocking-oriented CPU, and I have explained that overclocking is associated with gaming.

Just because something overclocks, does not make it a gaming chip though. Not only that, I know plenty of overclockers that do not game at all. I turned into one of those people once i got into memory overclocking. After going to Skylake, it took over 2 months before I actually touched a game, and even then, I still have more hours logged into my BIOS in 2016 than I do playing games. 

 

The G3258 was unlocked to pay homage to the Pentiums of old. After all, a lot of people overclocked their old pentiums back in the day. People still overclocked even though gaming was not as big as it is today, and a majority of the chips were capable of overclocking. My dad still brags about what he used to do with his Pentium Pro whenever i mention my overclocks today. Granted, I don't exactly remember then being shipped with unlocked multipliers like the G3258, but they could still be overclocked through BCLK/FSB. 

 

Also, I owe you an apology for being wrong about the GT 730 analogy. http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/535267-but-why-nvidia-launches-gt-710-graphics-card/?p=7104629

 

Sorry. 

 

With that being said, I still stand behind my views on the Pentium. 

[Sakkura]

Just because something overclocks, does not make it a gaming chip though. Not only that, I know plenty of overclockers that do not game at all. I turned into one of those people once i got into memory overclocking. After going to Skylake, it took over 2 months before I actually touched a game, and even then, I still have more hours logged into my BIOS in 2016 than I do playing games. 

 

The G3258 was unlocked to pay homage to the Pentiums of old. After all, a lot of people overclocked their old pentiums back in the day. People still overclocked even though gaming was not as big as it is today, and a majority of the chips were capable of overclocking. My dad still brags about what he used to do with his Pentium Pro whenever i mention my overclocks today. Granted, I don't exactly remember then being shipped with unlocked multipliers like the G3258, but they could still be overclocked through BCLK/FSB. 

 

Also, I owe you an apology for being wrong about the GT 730 analogy. http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/535267-but-why-nvidia-launches-gt-710-graphics-card/?p=7104629

 

Sorry. 

 

With that being said, I still stand behind my views on the Pentium. 

 

Back in the day, overclocking was all the more connected with gaming, because gaming performance was more CPU dependent than it is today. And PC gaming was a big deal 20 years ago.

 

I saw the GT 710 thing, since it's a new release I don't think you have anything to apologize for.

[MageTank]

Back in the day, overclocking was all the more connected with gaming, because gaming performance was more CPU dependent than it is today. And PC gaming was a big deal 20 years ago.

 

I saw the GT 710 thing, since it's a new release I don't think you have anything to apologize for.

I can't speak for certain about the past, because 20 years ago i was in diapers. However, I do remember stories about my dad and grandpa talking about trips to CompUSA and their experience with overclocking. However, my dad was not a gamer back then, but my grandpa was. That being said, I am unaware of any dos games that actually offered an improved gaming experience on overclocked hardware. My dad actually still has his old machine with Prince of Persia, that came on a floppy disk at the time, and it runs flawlessly on this old system that is not overclocked. Plenty of other dos games too (Redneck Rampage, Elder Scrolls Arena, Warcraft, etc). I remember that growing up as a child of the 90's, even with a pretty good PC in our house (Dad was a navy programmer, so we had pretty high end hardware for the time) that PC gaming still took a backseat to the consoles of old (NES, super nintendo, sega genesis, playstation, etc). No kid I knew in school played on the PC. In fact, during my childhood, I could only remember playing a few games on the PC. Redneck Rampage (not a game for children), Oregon Trail, Earthworm Jim, Quake, Doom, and Duke Nukem. Most of the other kids in school had never even heard of these games, with the exception of Oregon Trail (We had it on our school computers in the library) and Doom, which also released on the Nintendo 64. If PC gaming was a big deal back then, I was totally unaware of it.

 

Then there is the obvious reason as to why games run so poorly now, compared to back then, and that's the publishers. Game developers were not rushed to release products back in the day like they are now. After all, not many publishing studio's even existed, nor were there any exclusives to worry about, or direct platform competition on the PC side of things. Back then, games were designed with the hardware in mind, and worked pretty well together. Nowadays, you get AC:U, which makes bold claims like "Our game is too sophisticated for modern hardware, you will just have to wait until new hardware comes out for it to be playable". You would NEVER see this happening in the past. The real excuse Ubisoft should have used, was "We have this arbitrary rule to release an AC game every single year, and failed to meet that deadline, so we released an unfinished product". 

 

Another issue with overclocking old hardware for gaming, is that common practice back in the day was to tie the games to the CPU clock. Increasing the clock speed would cause the game itself to go faster (moving characters faster, time running out faster, etc). My grandpa actually told me about this before, and I also learned it was reproducible on the Gameboy as well. Fun Fact: Dark souls has a similar thing. While it is not related to the CPU clock, the game is limited by its frame rate. Running the game at 60fps causes item durability to decrease faster than what it would when playing at 30fps. 

 

[Sakkura]

20 years ago Win 95 was out, and it was totally cool (just ask Rachel and Chanandler Bong). And that was the golden age of CPU overclocking. Sure, those games may run fine on the pretty good PC your family had, but what about someone who couldn't quite afford a pretty good PC? Overclocking could help you there. Like the Celeron 300A, as well as all the stuff from AMD, Cyrix etc.

 

Some games were indeed tied to CPU clocks, though that practice gradually faded away. In any case, there are two sides to that coin - yes, overclocking could make a game run too fast, but it could also make a game not run too slow.

 

Games like Doom and Quake were PC-only for quite a while, and AFAIK had better multiplayer options. Not that it wasn't still pretty primitive.

[vanished]

Another issue with overclocking old hardware for gaming, is that common practice back in the day was to tie the games to the CPU clock. Increasing the clock speed would cause the game itself to go faster (moving characters faster, time running out faster, etc). My grandpa actually told me about this before, and I also learned it was reproducible on the Gameboy as well. Fun Fact: Dark souls has a similar thing. While it is not related to the CPU clock, the game is limited by its frame rate. Running the game at 60fps causes item durability to decrease faster than what it would when playing at 30fps. 

I can also attest to the truth of this.  It is evident in how any emulator is able to "fast forward" the game.  I also saw a video of overclocking a gameboy color to 24 MHz (iirc that's about 3x faster than it should be) and sure enough, the games literally operated faster.  My friend told me about a certain NFS game that was also like this, except I think it was locked to 30 fps, so trying to speed it up to 60 fps to make it playable ended up making it impossible because the whole thing ran twice normal speed!

[Tomsen]

I don't believe they did. They called it the Anniversary Edition for a reason. It is to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Pentium lineup. They unlocked it as a treat for people to play around with it.

 

Can it play games? Yes. It can play a vast majority of games. I am willing to say it can play up to 95% of the current titles available on PC. However, I cannot call it a gaming CPU, even a budget one, if some games flat out fail to run on it. I have not met a AAA title yet that did not run on my budget gaming GPU's (My 9800GT still plays the latest AAA titles on low settings).

 

You will not find a single post by me claiming that the G3258 cannot play games. I have used it for over a year as my primary driver, and even bought another pentium afterwards (G4400) so I have no ill will against pentiums in general. However, my point stands. Intel does not market the Pentium lineup as budget gaming CPU's. Therefore, you cannot expect them to put a budget gaming iGPU on them. 

They did. Yes, to make sure it stand out from the rest of the pentium lineup. Ultimatively they did it to sell more chips in that budget range.

 

There are no dedicated 'gaming' CPUs. However, Intel do know how well their products and its pricing points line up with the competition.

Most other budget processors are also running certain games at an almost unplayable level. That is the effect of going with a budget processor.

 

Intel doesn't market any of their processors as 'gaming' CPUs, AFAIK. I'm not expecting them to put a budget 'gaming' iGP on it.

[MageTank]

They did. Yes, to make sure it stand out from the rest of the pentium lineup. Ultimatively they did it to sell more chips in that budget range.

 

There are no dedicated 'gaming' CPUs. However, Intel do know how well their products and its pricing points line up with the competition.

Most other budget processors are also running certain games at an almost unplayable level. That is the effect of going with a budget processor.

 

Intel doesn't market any of their processors as 'gaming' CPUs, AFAIK. I'm not expecting them to put a budget 'gaming' iGP on it.

Actually, the Core series (i3, i5, i7) have been marketed as gaming for as long as I can remember. Even right now, their official website mentions gaming on the Core series (Something completely absent from the Pentium webpage) http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/pc-upgrades/6th-gen-core-processor-family.html?cid=sem118p100711g-c&intel_term=intel&gclid=CKWj0NjhysoCFQMJaQodFJQAPQ

 

 

The 6th generation Intel® Core™ processor comes packed with advanced features to boost productivity, 3D gaming, and creative potential, opening your world to endless possibilities.

I don't know where you live, but here in the US, i've seen a few commercials for their Core i7 being a gamer CPU. 

 

 

(I remember seeing this on G4/Esquire during my Ninja Warrior phase)

 

Even the way they advertise their products on their official website, the Core series specifically has gaming listed, and the Pentiums/Celeron CPU's are in their own separate tab, called Value Processors and do not mention gaming at all. 

 

The G3258 was a special edition CPU. That is obvious by the special title it has, which is "Anniversary Edition". It alone cannot make every Pentium a "Budget Gaming CPU". 

 

You are right when you say that there are other CPU's priced around the G3258's price tag that cannot play similar games. However, that point goes both ways too. The G3258 is currently priced at $65, and the Athlon 860k is currently priced at $70. The difference between the G3258 and Athlon 860k in gaming, is that the 860k requires no edits to play Far Cry 4 or Dragons Age Inquisition, and does not stutter in GTA 5, like the G3258 does. Both are budget priced, right? $5 price difference between the two should in no way differentiate which market these CPU's belong too. Both are clearly budget CPU's, we can all agree on that. HOWEVER. Only one of these CPU's is a "budget gaming CPU". It is the one that is also advertised by their manufacturer as a budget gaming CPU as well. http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/processors/desktop/athlon-cpu

 

Feel free to ignore the results of the graph, that is not why I bring this page up. Instead, look at what they are testing the CPU with. Battlefield 4, a video game. They are advertising this CPU as capable of gaming, and using it as a selling point. Meaning they are marketing this CPU as a gaming CPU. Something Intel does not do with the G3258, or any other pentium in their lineup. I am not trying to say the G3258, or any pentium for that matter, is incapable of playing games. I've owned two, i've gamed on both of them for well over a year. I am fully aware of what they can and cannot do. My point is simple. The Pentium is not marketed as a gaming CPU. Therefore, the Pentium lineup is not a "budget gaming CPU" lineup. Knowing that, I gave my opinion that adding an expensive iGPU to a budget (not gaming) CPU would be a bad idea, when the CPU itself would bottleneck the graphics solution. 

[Sakkura]

Intel and AMD don't have the exclusive right to define what is a gaming CPU and what isn't.

[MageTank]

Intel and AMD don't have the exclusive right to define what is a gaming CPU and what isn't.

Exactly! Neither do consumers. There exists no definition of a "gaming CPU" so a "budget gaming CPU" cannot exist, can it? 

 

What would you consider a gaming CPU? Any CPU that can play a game? If so, every CPU ever is a gaming CPU, so the price point is what determines if one is a "budget" gaming CPU, right? 

 

My problem with calling a CPU a budget gaming CPU (or gaming CPU for that matter) is that people often forget to put the asterisk after gaming CPU, and tell people that "Hey, you get what you pay for, and this CPU might not play every game". Sure, you could argue that it should be common knowledge by now, except it isn't. If it were, we would not see those threads on this very forum on a daily basis. Now, if AMD or Intel advertises their CPU's as gaming CPU's, then they themselves take on the responsibility for that. They also include graphs (mind you, not always accurate, but still) to show the consumer what they may be able to expect with their product. Intel even includes the asterisk and tiny letters in their videos to tell people the product used, the game, and other hardware information and how it is subject to change. However, intent remains the same. They intend for this hardware to be used for gaming, which is why they feel comfortable advertising it. Intel did not feel comfortable advertising that the Pentiums were capable of gaming, which, they are. They just felt it was not the purpose of the product, or maybe they didn't want people to buy the product with that intention, in an attempt to sell them a more expensive piece of hardware. I don't exactly know the logistics behind it, I just know that they do not advertise the product as a gaming product. They do advertise the Iris Pro iGPU's against dGPU's, and specifically mention gaming when making those comparisons. http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/hd-graphics/hd-graphics-developer.html

 

 

This is why i drew the conclusion that a product that is not marketed for gaming, will most likely not receive an iGPU that is also marketed for gaming. It just does not seem practical. 

[Sakkura]

Exactly! Neither do consumers. There exists no definition of a "gaming CPU" so a "budget gaming CPU" cannot exist, can it? 

 

What would you consider a gaming CPU? Any CPU that can play a game? If so, every CPU ever is a gaming CPU, so the price point is what determines if one is a "budget" gaming CPU, right? 

 

 

-snip-

 

This is why i drew the conclusion that a product that is not marketed for gaming, will most likely not receive an iGPU that is also marketed for gaming. It just does not seem practical. 

 

Well, that's one way to look at it I guess. I come at it from the aspect of "can it run many/most of the games people play," but that doesn't have to be the only definition.

 

And I don't dispute that it's highly unlikely that Intel would make a Pentium with a high-end iGPU. I'd be thrilled just to see a Core i3 like that. I've maintained that a Pentium with a strong iGPU would have been an interesting product, but it would come with serious caveats. A Core i3 could be recommended with a lot fewer reservations.

[MageTank]

Well, that's one way to look at it I guess. I come at it from the aspect of "can it run many/most of the games people play," but that doesn't have to be the only definition.

 

And I don't dispute that it's highly unlikely that Intel would make a Pentium with a high-end iGPU. I'd be thrilled just to see a Core i3 like that. I've maintained that a Pentium with a strong iGPU would have been an interesting product, but it would come with serious caveats. A Core i3 could be recommended with a lot fewer reservations.

That's exactly what i said earlier. When i said :

 

However, i believe putting these iGPU's on locked CPU's (Such as i3's and locked i5's) would be a genius idea. Think about it. People buying -K CPU's are more than likely overclocking, meaning they are prone to buy expensive hardware for more performance, meaning they should have a dGPU in the first place. Non-K CPU's means people are either not wanting to OC or they can't afford the Z boards, K SKU's, and aftermarket cooling (budget limited) and are most likely going to buy a cheap dGPU to go along with it. Pairing these SKU's with a stronger iGPU would increase their demand in the budget gaming market, allowing for intel to add a small premium to them. I would pay $50 more for an i3 if it would save me $100 on a GTX 750 Ti. Not to mention I could build a smaller PC, have less fans, etc.

 

 

 I personally don't see why they won't do it, because It would sell very well. Even if you had to add a $30-$50 price premium on it, if the GPU is as fast as say, a GTX 750 Ti ($100-$120 GPU) then a $100-$150 i3 with an Iris Pro iGPU would be well worth that price. It would completely nullify the reason to buy a $100 GPU, when you can get the same performance on the CPU itself. It would force both Nvidia and AMD to bolster their low-end products to either be much faster than the Iris Pro CPU, or much cheaper than the Iris Pro CPU. I doubt we would get both at the same time though, as it would risk cutting into profits of their mid range cards. 

 

We've already seen the Iris Pro i3 laptop SKU's. We know Intel doesn't mind putting it on i3's, they are just not making that transition to the desktop segment for some reason. Hopefully that changes once GT4e comes out, and makes a big enough impact on the dGPU market. 

[Sakkura]

I guess the question is how much an Iris Pro Core i3 would cannibalize sales of Iris Pro Core i5/i7 models. That's always the equation to consider when lower-end SKUs have arbitrarily reduced feature sets. I don't see much of a loss for Intel there though, as pricing has been so far.

 

Would also be neat to see some real head to head iGPU competition between AMD and Intel.