Intel GPUs "on shelves" Q1 2022

[Kisai]

19 hours ago, porina said:

 

 

Non-gaming is still a valid market. IMO a 50 level part is plenty enough for entry level gaming (1080p 60fps, probably doesn't even need to be "low".) Only reason I got the 3070 laptop earlier was because the 1050 laptop wasn't cutting it any more for latest games, but it is only just falling off usable.

The 1050 parts don't hit 1080p60 at all except in what has to be 10+ year old DirectX9 titles. And not without making horrific noise.

 

Like not to be cheeky, but the 1080p 60fps+ crowd is never the target audience. 3060 should be able to get 4Kp60, but if you're not running 4Kp60 then 1080p120 should be possible, or something in between. Intel, for all it's horrible iGPU implementations over the last 20 years, would market itself as being "UHD" even when it couldn't actually do UHD resolutions at 60fps at all. All the UHD630 parts in 12"-14" laptops, plug those into a 4K screen, yes you can get a 4K desktop, but run absolutely nothing at usable framerates. Not even productivity software or things that use a webview/web browser.

 

This is where things "should" be for a 4Kp60 experience in theory. 

 

This is where you can get an "acceptable" 1080p performance

 

720p60 maybe, 1080p under DX9 or so

 

I'm not even sure what the point is when the iGPU is 1/10th the power it needs to be when it's marketed as "UHD"

 

What's really bothersome is that many laptop parts share the name with the desktop part, but are a good 1 or 2 tiers below the desktop part, so you're literately paying a boatload of money for a laptop that will not do what you expect of it. The 3080, and 2070 mobile parts are still only x60 tier performance in a laptop. 

 

So if Intel comes out with cards that are readily "3070" in performance, that would surprise me. But it only needs to hit the 3060 tier to be something that hits all viable use cases that don't require CUDA itself.

 

[porina]

14 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The 1050 parts don't hit 1080p60 at all except in what has to be 10+ year old DirectX9 titles. And not without making horrific noise.

1050 is unable to run latest AAA games regardless of settings, which is why I had to change laptop. However for games of its era, which is 5 years ago at most, it was fine running 1080p60 even if it required lower settings.

 

Horrific noise is just standard for laptops. At least, every "gaming" laptop I've ever had.

 

14 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Intel, for all it's horrible iGPU implementations over the last 20 years, would market itself as being "UHD" even when it couldn't actually do UHD resolutions at 60fps at all. All the UHD630 parts in 12"-14" laptops, plug those into a 4K screen, yes you can get a 4K desktop, but run absolutely nothing at usable framerates. Not even productivity software or things that use a webview/web browser.

They were never rated for gaming performance. While not a personal preference, at worst case you're running 4k30 but it is sufficient for many productivity use cases, and 4k60 was available as long as you use the right cable (usually DP not HDMI of the time).

 

14 minutes ago, Kisai said:

What's really bothersome is that many laptop parts share the name with the desktop part, but are a good 1 or 2 tiers below the desktop part, so you're literately paying a boatload of money for a laptop that will not do what you expect of it. The 3080, and 2070 mobile parts are still only x60 tier performance in a laptop. 

I'm not aware of it ever being more than one tier below desktop, at least on nvidia side. I have no idea what ATI/AMD did. A past laptop had a 970M which is near enough a desktop 960 in performance. The 3070 laptop I have currently is limited to 130W and has slightly fewer cores than the desktop equivalent, puts it about at the 3060 Ti desktop equivalent. The 1050 I'm less sure about, in configuration it is same as desktop but may have a lower power limit.

 

14 minutes ago, Kisai said:

So if Intel comes out with cards that are readily "3070" in performance, that would surprise me. But it only needs to hit the 3060 tier to be something that hits all viable use cases that don't require CUDA itself.

The 3070 claims are NOT from Intel, who have yet to make any claims on relative performance. It is an educated guess from the wider tech community based on what we currently know about its architecture and size, with predictions on clocks. As I mentioned earlier, Intel seems to be using a lot of silicon (comparable to 3070 while on denser process) so I have to wonder if they're putting something extra in.

[igormp]

On 10/23/2021 at 8:24 AM, porina said:

Anandtech also observed that Intel seem to be putting in about twice the matrix operation resource in than nvidia do. This is not expected to directly impact gaming performance, but could indirectly in that it would likely be the driving force behind XeSS, Intel's equivalent to DLSS where AMD still are absent.

If they manage to match a 3060 in raw performance, but with more vram, those matrix cores, reasonable pricing and good software support, I'm going to buy one at launch day.

Ok, I may be asking too much, but a man can dream.

 

I'm really tired of Nvidia being the only player in the ML world and AMD not even trying. Heck, I'm currently using a rx480 and it's basically as useful as intel's integrated graphics. Actually, even worse than that since it's media engines are totally shit.

 

On 10/24/2021 at 1:05 PM, Kisai said:

But it only needs to hit the 3060 tier to be something that hits all viable use cases that don't require CUDA itself.

I'm betting all my chips that Intel will have a software stack that's okaish enough to go against CUDA. As long as it's not as painful as ROCm and WORKS, I'm sold.

[porina]

40 minutes ago, igormp said:

I'm betting all my chips that Intel will have a software stack that's okaish enough to go against CUDA. As long as it's not as painful as ROCm and WORKS, I'm sold.

I'm not a programmer so this may not be a direct functional equivalent, but Intel is pushing OneAPI, which is open.

 

Also:

 

[whm1974]

On 10/22/2021 at 6:56 AM, SupaKomputa said:

If they throw anything better than my 580 with retail price, i will snatch it.

The same with my GTX 970...

[Gohardgrandpa]

I hope Intel knocks this out the park. We need more cards in the wild. They know the cards will sell. The issue is what price/performance will they bring to the table. 

[igormp]

2 hours ago, porina said:

I'm not a programmer so this may not be a direct functional equivalent, but Intel is pushing OneAPI, which is open.

 

Also:

 

OneAPI targets no GPU whatsoever at the moment, only some specific optimizations to some ML/DS libraries/programs and abstractions for FPGAs, but I wouldn't be surprised if they included support for their Arc products in there.

[Dr_Whom]

On 10/24/2021 at 12:48 PM, porina said:

The 3070 claims are NOT from Intel, who have yet to make any claims on relative performance. It is an educated guess from the wider tech community based on what we currently know about its architecture and size, with predictions on clocks. As I mentioned earlier, Intel seems to be using a lot of silicon (comparable to 3070 while on denser process) so I have to wonder if they're putting something extra in.

They might not have come out and publicly said it, but there is this leaked slide floating around. Unless I missed something and this was proven fake or something, idk.