News that Intel's first Xe graphics cards will cost $200 turns out to be a mistranslation

[Pup Shepard]

According to PC world, Intel's new GPU's will not be at the $200 mark.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Quote

 

News that Intel's first Xe graphics cards will cost $200 turns out to be a mistranslation

Intel graphics chief Raja Koduri's remarks were mistranslated in voiceover.

Cristiano Siqueira/Intel Graphics

By Brad Chacos

Senior Editor, PCWorld

AUG 2, 2019 4:14 PM PT

Editor's note: Since this article posted, Tom's Hardware reported that Koduri's original statement about the first Xe graphics card had been mistranslated. There is no new news about what the first Xe product will be—Koduri's remarks stuck to Intel's official story. We're pasting below Koduri's actual remarks from the video interview, which you'll also find in the Tom's Hardware report:

Not everybody will buy a $500-$600 card, but there are enough people buying those too – so that’s a great market.

So the strategy we’re taking is we’re not really worried about the performance range, the cost range and all because eventually our architecture as I’ve publicly said, has to hit from mainstream, which starts even around $100, all the way to Data Center-class graphics with HBM memories and all, which will be expensive.

We have to hit everything; it’s just a matter of where do you start? The First one? The Second one? The Third one? And the strategy that we have within a period of roughly – let’s call it 2-3 years – to have the full stack.

Our original story follows.

 

Intel’s discrete “Xe” graphics cards will be priced to move when they debut in 2020. In an interview with Russian YouTube channel Pro Hi-Tech, Intel’s chief architect and graphics head Raja Koduri said that the chip giant is targeting the mainstream $200 price point with its initial consumer offering.

Koduri drops the information around the 6:15 mark in the video below. If you don’t speak Russian, you can turn on closed captioning and set the subtitles to English in the video settings, but they’re a bit garbled. Fortunately, Redditor u/taryakun provided a more legible translation of the exchange: 

“Our strategy revolves around price, not performance. First are GPUs for everyone at $200 price, then the same architecture but with the higher amount of HBM memory for data centers... Our strategy in 2 to 3 years is to release whole family of GPUs from integrated graphics and popular discrete graphics to data centers GPUs.”

 

AMD has also taken the “GPUs for everyone” approach in recent years, kicking off recent GPU generations with more affordable options, including the $200 Radeon RX 480 and $350 Radeon RX 5700. Raja Koduri headed AMD’s Radeon division before Intel poached him in late 2017. Nvidia, meanwhile, tends to launch new GPU generations with powerful high-end graphics cards like the $600 GeForce GTX 1080 and $1,200 RTX 2080 Ti. Nvidia has dominated enthusiast-class graphics cards for several years now, which probably plays into it and AMD’s respective release strategies.

 

 

 

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3429582/intels-first-discrete-xe-graphics-cards-cost-200.amp.html

[Metallus97]

ok, good! We ned some high end competition!

[NumLock21]

I don't know where to post this, so I post it here.

[mr moose]

The thing I find most interesting about his remarks is not the cost but that he seems to say they don't know which market to aim for first.   Obviously he talks about needing to hit all markets, but the way its said almost insinuates the domestic lower end is almost as profitable/important as the data center/power compute end of the market when all things are considered.

[Fnige]

On 8/3/2019 at 2:46 PM, NumLock21 said:

new architecture every 10 years... Oh that makes sense looks over in the 14nm direction

[tech.guru]

I would argue they already have a mainstream graphics line, APU.

where does this card fit in? it would need to provide value and have some benefit for gamers.

casual consumers are fine with APU. the integrated graphics can even play 4k content.

[Arika]

On 8/3/2019 at 1:39 PM, huilun02 said:

Its going to suck at perf per dollar. Intel might even nerf competitor performance on their chipsets. Glad to be on AM4.

That's one hell of an assumption 

[Quadriplegic]

Yeah, they missed a zero.

[RejZoR]

Whoever thought Intel's new GPU will cost peanuts must have been an idiot. When you come to market as new player you arrive with a big bang and you can be assured it won't cost freaking 200 bucks. It'll be a high end GPU card that will fight with the best on the market and will most likely cost $800-1000. They might eventually release low(er) end cards for that kind of money eventually just like AMD and NVIDIA, but expecting this to be the norm is just absurd and silly. Intel sure as hell ain't a charity, just like AMD or NVIDIA aren't either.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

That's one hell of an assumption 

It's pretty typical of many people unfortunately.  They just keep parroting the same emotionally based but fact devoid tropes.

[Bananasplit_00]

I'm exited to see a third player join the game, hopefully this will bring NVIDIA back into check

[TechyBen]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

It's pretty typical of many people unfortunately.  They just keep parroting the same emotionally based but fact devoid tropes.

NVidia disabled PhysX CPU support as soon as they purchased PhysX and forced people to use their cards, even though the software/features could run on other hardware (depending on GPU performance, custom chips are fast at the custom job). I use to run PhysX demos/game hacks in the early days on an AMD Athlon 1400x. XD

 

So, no, no "sabotage", but sometimes features just get dropped, because "too difficult to support 2 code branches" excuses, then you have an "edge" on the competitor (which worked poorly for NVidias sync, so they opened it up more to try and recompete with AMD and freesync).

 

Will Intel do the same with their GPU? Offering "AI" or some other buzzword that only works on Intel CPU + Intel GPU? Absolutely certainly Optain not!! Oh, oops!

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, TechyBen said:

NVidia disabled PhysX CPU support as soon as they purchased PhysX and forced people to use their cards, even though the software/features could run on other hardware (depending on GPU performance, custom chips are fast at the custom job). I use to run PhysX demos/game hacks in the early days on an AMD Athlon 1400x. XD

 

So, no, no "sabotage", but sometimes features just get dropped, because "too difficult to support 2 code branches" excuses, then you have an "edge" on the competitor (which worked poorly for NVidias sync, so they opened it up more to try and recompete with AMD and freesync).

 

Will Intel do the same with their GPU? Offering "AI" or some other buzzword that only works on Intel CPU + Intel GPU? Absolutely certainly Optain not!! Oh, oops!

We can argue about those things all the time,  but to claim it will happen in a product we know fuck all about, that won't be released for another year or 2 in an industry that changes faster than I change my underpants (daily for those who care), Then such claims are just parroting the internet narrative.  I will hang shit on any company that does something bad (like Intel anti trust over AMD) but I will not assume it will happen and tell everyone about it unless it does happen.

[TechyBen]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

We can argue about those things all the time,  but to claim it will happen in a product we know **** all about, that won't be released for another year or 2 in an industry that changes faster than I change my underpants (daily for those who care), Then such claims are just parroting the internet narrative.  I will hang **** on any company that does something bad (like Intel anti trust over AMD) but I will not assume it will happen and tell everyone about it unless it does happen.

Well, I can understand those who do have the feeling and expectation of Intel doing what Intel does (Or AMD over promising, or Nvidia being sly with drivers etc). Strange you realise once they do it it's a problem... but have no qualms over buying a product from a company known to have problems? Or only when it's a physical fault, not an advertising one?

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Well, I can understand those who do have the feeling and expectation of Intel doing what Intel does (Or AMD over promising, or Nvidia being sly with drivers etc). Strange you realise once they do it it's a problem... but have no qualms over buying a product from a company known to have problems? Or only when it's a physical fault, not an advertising one?

I only have 2 choices for the main hardware in my PC.  They all do bad shit so you can't avoid buying from a company that is evil.   Hence why my advice is always buy the best you can afford at the time of purchase, not buy second best because the other company was evil more recently or might be less evil in the future.

[TechyBen]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I only have 2 choices for the main hardware in my PC.  They all do bad shit so you can't avoid buying from a company that is evil.   Hence why my advice is always buy the best you can afford at the time of purchase, not buy second best because the other company was evil more recently or might be less evil in the future.

Never said to avoid them. Just said I can understand others, and do so somewhat myself, expect Intel to do something a bit weird on release *cough* Optain *cough*.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Never said to avoid them.

Then I misread this bit:

12 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Well, I can understand those who do have the feeling and expectation of Intel doing what Intel does (Or AMD over promising, or Nvidia being sly with drivers etc). Strange you realise once they do it it's a problem... but have no qualms over buying a product from a company known to have problems? Or only when it's a physical fault, not an advertising one?

 

I am just saying the concept that avoiding a company on the grounds that they might do something bad is a futile as trying to avoid any company that has done something bad.

 

But more importantly, believing a company will suck at producing a product we know nothing about then continue to accuse them of future anti-trust/anti consumer practice because of it is just an assumption and one that follows the usual internet tropes.

 

[TechyBen]

Just now, mr moose said:

Then I misread this bit:

 

I am just saying the concept that avoiding a company on the grounds that they might do something bad is a futile as trying to avoid any company that has done something bad.

 

But more importantly, believing a company will suck at producing a product we know nothing about then continue to accuse them of future anti-trust/anti consumer practice because of it is just an assumption and one that follows the usual internet tropes.

 

Yeah. We buy it. But may still complain if it's poor. Just because there is 1 store locally with fruit and veg, does not mean I'm not going to complain if it's rotten/poor quality.

Nothing about buying... like, my reply was to:

Quote

We can argue about those things all the time,  but to claim it will happen in a product we know **** all about

Like, we know Intels/AMDs/Nvidia's (Apple, Google, Microsoft?) track record. I mean, Google killing off support is a Meme by now. Intel making restrictions on a product launch to try and capture market share? Yeah, complain we are making it up?

 

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Yeah. We buy it. But may still complain if it's poor. Just because there is 1 store locally with fruit and veg, does not mean I'm not going to complain if it's rotten/poor quality.

Nothing about buying... like, my reply was to:

Like, we know Intels/AMDs/Nvidia's (Apple, Google, Microsoft?) track record. I mean, Google killing off support is a Meme by now. Intel making restrictions on a product launch to try and capture market share? Yeah, complain we are making it up?

 

So what are you saying? that it's O.K to claim a future product will be poor and said company will engage in anti consumer behavior to hide it?   We are not complaining about a product we know to be poor, it hasn't even been released yet.

[TechyBen]

Just now, mr moose said:

So what are you saying? that it's O.K to claim a future product will be poor and said company will engage in anti consumer behavior to hide it?   We are not complaining about a product we know to be poor, it hasn't even been released yet.

Whuh? They have done so in the past. Optain had strange limits and restrictions, also strange and untrue claims.

Like, I know people and companies change... but they *show* they have changed. I expect the product to be just like most of Intels releases. Strong performance, expensive segment, and possibly claiming it's "AI magic" (or something) when it will do exactly what AMD and Nvidia cards do. Perhaps they will release Quadro style Enterprise only cards (locking out consumer market?) or perhaps it will just be an advertisement/buzzword thing. Either way... it will probably follow their existing efforts.

 

Or are you saying you expect nothing whatsoever... in an industry you have to plan for daily?

[mr moose]

Just now, TechyBen said:

Whuh? They have done so in the past. Optain had strange limits and restrictions, also strange and untrue claims.

Past or future? There is a huge difference.    If you are making appraisals about products from the past they are not assumptions,  if you are making appraisals and claims about future products and activities they are assumptions.

 

 

Just now, TechyBen said:

Like, I know people and companies change... but they *show* they have changed. I expect the product to be just like most of Intels releases. Strong performance, expensive segment, and possibly claiming it's "AI magic" (or something) when it will do exactly what AMD and Nvidia cards do. Perhaps they will release Quadro style Enterprise only cards (locking out consumer market?) or perhaps it will just be an advertisement/buzzword thing. Either way... it will probably follow their existing efforts.

 

Or are you saying you expect nothing whatsoever... in an industry you have to plan for daily?

I don't expect any company to change,  some go quiet, some get good PR,  but for the most part they are all the same and have the same end goal.

 

Once you start making claims about the future they are assumptions, they are quoting the narrative, nothing else.

[TechyBen]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Past or future? There is a huge difference.    If you are making appraisals about products from the past they are not assumptions,  if you are making appraisals and claims about future products and activities they are assumptions.

 

 

I don't expect any company to change,  some go quiet, some get good PR,  but for the most part they are all the same and have the same end goal.

 

Once you start making claims about the future they are assumptions, they are quoting the narrative, nothing else.

No. Not the product. I made no claim about the product. (Quality at least, only the possibility of locking out is always there).

 

I worked in consumer goods sales. Some companies were known for materials purchases, so "plastic" parts. Others for 2x the weight (and not the fake lead weights that Sony does) because it had better materials.

 

Sometimes a company sent a curve ball, and was amazing/trash and bucked *their* trend. Other times, it generally followed through (some companies amazing hardware, poor software, others amazing services, great hardware, but custom builds would be "better", but harder on the customer knowledge investment).

 

I never said Intel is not the same. You are still conflating "Intel are doing X now, I expect them to do ~X later" with "Intel suckx Get AMDzz!!!!11010101!!lozx!"

[mr moose]

18 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

No. Not the product. I made no claim about the product. (Quality at least, only the possibility of locking out is always there).

 

I worked in consumer goods sales. Some companies were known for materials purchases, so "plastic" parts. Others for 2x the weight (and not the fake lead weights that Sony does) because it had better materials.

 

Sometimes a company sent a curve ball, and was amazing/trash and bucked *their* trend. Other times, it generally followed through (some companies amazing hardware, poor software, others amazing services, great hardware, but custom builds would be "better", but harder on the customer knowledge investment).

 

I never said Intel is not the same. You are still conflating "Intel are doing X now, I expect them to do ~X later" with "Intel suckx Get AMDzz!!!!11010101!!lozx!"

Did you read the discussion history that I was responding to?  The claim was made that this Intel product (as yet unreleased) was going to be low performing and that Intel would nerf their competitors using their chipsets to make up for it.   That is the claim that was called out as an assumption, that is the claim I am calling a parroting of the usual internet tropes. 

 

I am not conflating anything, it seems you have come into a discussion halfway through and taken what I said out of context. 

[TechyBen]

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Spoiler

 

Did you read the discussion history that I was responding to?  The claim was made that this Intel product (as yet unreleased) was going to be low performing and that Intel would nerf their competitors using their chipsets to make up for it.   That is the claim that was called out as an assumption, that is the claim I am calling a parroting of the usual internet tropes. 

 

I am not conflating anything, it seems you have come into a discussion halfway through and taken what I said out of context. 

 

 

I can understand those assumptions though. See Optain. It performs similar to SSDs, with a couple of expectations. It was not advertised as "like and SSD but with X extra features" but "faster". Likewise, I can understand people expecting the GPU to be released, be sub mid range, and be advertised as "faster", when in fact, it'll probably just be different market segment (like AMDs compute stuff).

 

Those opinions have merit, to the extent they have merit. Even if they don't have merit, to the full extent ("Intel is trash LolzZZA!!!!").

 

As said, customers will go insane if they find one rotten fruit. Fruit goes bad, no need to attack the store person... but at the same time, it's still rotten. If Intel release a good product, that's great. But we just need to know how to compare it to others, and how to check if Intel are following suit, or bucking a trend.

Quote

It's pretty typical of many people unfortunately.  They just keep parroting the same emotionally based but fact devoid tropes.

Me: Nvidia does it.

Me again: Intel did it recently.

Point: Not really emotionally bias (see above examples).

Etc.