Nvidia CEO goes on Intel rant
Nvidia CEO and co-founder Jen-Hsun Huang let rip with a diatribe against Intel at Nvidia's financial analyst day on Thursday. Huang cited frustration with recent Intel comments stating that discrete graphics cards will become "unnecessary."
Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang
(Credit: Nvidia)Because Intel, the world's largest chipmaker, includes integrated-graphics silicon in most of its chipsets the company has become the world's largest supplier of graphics chips. Its upcoming Nehalem processors will move the graphics from the chipset onto the same piece of silicon as the main processor. A design that is expected to result in vastly better performance.
(Note: A contrarian take on the graphics market states that Nvidia remains the #1 graphics supplier because approximately 73 million Intel integrated graphics processors (IGP) are unused in systems due to "double-attach" with an Nvidia solution, according to Doug Freedman of American Technology Research. More here at ExtremeTech.)
This image of Intel as an unstoppable graphics juggernaut is what Huang takes issue with. What set him off initially was a comment from an Intel graphics and gaming technologist who said that consumers "probably won't need" discrete cards in the future. Nvidia's primary business is designing and supplying graphics chips for discrete graphics cards that go into PCs.
"We don't typically like to do this. It's just that we've been taking it and taking it and taking it. Every single frickin' day. Are you allowed to say that word? Every day all over the world. Enough is enough."
Huang was especially upset about Intel's claims of boosting integrated graphics performance in the future, saying Intel's claims paled against what Nvidia will achieve by that time.
"Claim after claim after claim. They're just false. They cross the line of fair play," he said. "Here's another one. Nvidia's gonna be dead. Because we're (Intel) sticking the graphics in the CPU and (Nvidia) will have no place to stick it," he said.
Huang also attacked Intel's marketing machine. "Just because they have this enormous marketing budget. Just because they have platforms everywhere in the world. It doesn't make it right. To take on smaller companies. It's just not right."
Huang also mounted an aggressive defense of gaming on the PC--one of the main reasons many consumers opt for Nvidia graphics chips. He began by claiming that Intel graphics can't run games. "We're not the only ones saying this. This is Tim Sweeney. One of the most important game developers in the entire world. 'Intel is incapable of running modern games. Intel's integrated graphics just don't work. I don't think they will ever work.' This wasn't said in 1994. This was said on March 10, 2008," Huang said.
"(It's) one of the most important apps. I play games. A lot more people play games today than before. It's a big industry. We happen to think games are important. Game developers are important. Game players are important. Online games, important. Retail games, important. First person shooters, important. Simulation games, important. I'm a perfectly grown adult. I'm not ashamed of them."
Intel also has plans to bring out a graphics engine code-named Larrabee that uses "many cores" to take on high-end engineering and scientific applications. And presumably games too.
When asked to comment, Intel spokesman Dan Snyder said, "Are you surprised? Nvidia's CEO has been very vocal about their feelings for several months now, so I don't think any of this comes as a surprise."
Brooke Crothers has served as an editor at large at CNET News, an editor at Dow Jones' Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, and a senior editor at InfoWorld. His CNET blog covers chip technology and computer systems, and how they define the computing experience. He also contributes to The New York Times' Bits and Technology sections. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. Follow Brooke on Twitter @mbrookec.
FYI: most 3D/CG design and animation rendering is done in the CPU, not the GPU. While the GPU can do rendering, it is often inferior to results made by CPU. The reason is two-fold... RAM and capacity. A CPU w/ a few GB of RAM is a lot more capable of rendering an image than a GPU (even w/ SLI) and a few hundred megs.
Now note that the term 'rendering' has two meanings - in gaming and video, it is the presentation of a 2D image from 3D data onto the monitor or screen. In 3D/CG, it is the processing of that information into a image file, or as frames in a video file.
In 3D design and CG artwork, vidcards are mainly used as a way to better judge or preview the work in a better light, but has little to do w/ that final result. This is (slowly) changing as GPU tech improves, but a pure GPU-borne render is 2nd-class compared to one generated by the CPU.
/P
You seem to forget that intel manufacturing technology is way beyond what Nvidia have. And as of multrithreaded application being "a pain in the ass" I have to disagree. Of course it's harder, but you do get used to it and as for the article saying that no one know how to do it efficiently and that so much money is wasted in research, I would say that the person who wrote that isn't very up to date or severly biaised since more and more function such as Parallel.For are comming out speeding up multicore application without having to write a bunch of code.
As a user, the X3100 is what's stopping me from buying a Macbook. I'll either save up for the Pro model with the GeForce 8600, or wait for them to put a real graphics card in the little one.
Computer makers ought to use more than intel GPU integrated chips, they stink and have caused alot of problems with Vista, as well as their increasing use is causing smaller companies like Nvidia to feel the pain.
toyota corolla is to luxury car.
Intel graphics is suitable for word and excel doing basic functions. Please don't try to strain the poor dear with videos or 3D anything. But count on intel to market some of their "benchmarks" that will claim its as fast as a 8800gtx.
It is just the next logical step for them to utilize them for graphics and possibly physics. Just speculation, but imagine a 8 3GHZ core processor running on a 64Bit OS with 8GB of RAM. One of those 3GHZ processors is dedicated to graphics plus 1GB of RAM. Another processor is dedicated to Physics. Sounds powerful to me.
Again this is just speculation based on the marketing promises of Intel.
That will give them a show of hands of how many people think that discrete graphics cards IS necessary.
-
by JDog2pt0
April 21, 2009 5:28 PM PDT
- Integrated graphics will never match up to what a good old fashioned graphics card can do, no matter how powerful it is. We're talking about a chip that is supposed to share resources among everything else happening on the computer and is supposed to be just as good if not better to an entire piece of hardware many times larger with all of its own resources dedicated solely to the purposed for which it was built i.e. handling all the visuals on the computer. Intel is using is size to bully Nvidia and agreeably is not playing fair with incredibly bloated claims that I have yet to see actually happen. For all I care, Intel can go and shove it. I would like to see Nvidia win, it would deal a large blow to Intel's overinflated ego. Unfortunately though, Intel's sheer size makes them the likely winner. Only time will tell.
-
Like this
Reply to this comment
-
(16 Comments)