• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

Integrated Graphics Chip Market to Disappear by 2012 According to Jon Peddie Research

Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
8,013 (2.11/day)
Likes
854
Location
Dorset, UK
System Name Gaming Rig | Uni Laptop
Processor Intel Q6600 G0 (2007) @ 3.6Ghz @ 1.45625v (LLC) / 4 GHz Bench @ 1.63v | AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-62 2 GHz
Motherboard ASUS P5Q Deluxe (Intel P45) | HP 6715b
Cooling Xigmatek Dark Knight w/AC MX2 ~ Case Fans: 2 x 180mm + 1 x 120mm Silverstone Fans
Memory 4GB OCZ Platinum PC2-8000 @ 1000Mhz 5-5-5-15 2.1v | 2 x 1GB DDR2 667 MHz
Video Card(s) XFX GTX 285 1GB, Modded FTW BIOS @ 725/1512/1350 w/Accelero Xtreme GTX 280 + Scythe sinks| ATI X1250
Storage 2x WD6400AAKS 1 TB Raid 0, 140GB Raid 1 & 80GB Maxtor Basics External HDD (storage) | 160GB 2.5"
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster SM2433BW @ 1920 x 1200 via DVI-D | 15.4" WSXGA+ (1680 x 1050 resolution)
Case Silverstone Fortress FT01B-W ~ Logitech G15 R1 / Microsoft Laser Mouse 6000
Audio Device(s) Soundmax AD2000BX Onboard Sound, via Logitech X-230 2.1 | ADI SoundMAX HD Audio
Power Supply Corsair TX650W | HP 90W
Software Windows 7 Ultimate Build 7100 x64 | Windows 7 Ultimate Build 7100 x64
Benchmark Scores 3DM06: 19519, Vantage: P16170 ~ Win7: -CPU 7.5 -MEM 7.5 -AERO 7.9 -GFX 6.0 -HDD 6.0
#1
Jon Peddie Research (JPR), the industry's research and consulting firm for graphics and multimedia, today announced a new study that indicates the end of the market for the popular integrated graphics processor chipset, known as the IGP.

After fifteen years of stellar growth the IGP, will cease to exist, replaced by graphics embedded in the processor. Integrated graphics are used in desktop and net top PCs, notebooks, and netbooks, and various embedded systems such as point of sale, set-top boxes, and signage systems.

Show full news post
 

DarkMatter

New Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
1,714 (0.46/day)
Likes
182
Processor Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now)
Motherboard Asus P5Q-E
Cooling Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu
Memory 4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory
Storage 74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0
Display(s) HP p1130, 21" Trinitron
Case Antec p180
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi PLatinum
Power Supply 700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency
Software Windows XP
#3
I'm not so sure about that. Really, according to what I've seen around, there's been a shift from Intel IGPs to more capable Ati/Nvidia IGPs lately. That suggests that people want better IGPs than the ones Intel is offering, and IMHO chipset-IGPs will always be able to squeeze some more performance than graphics embedded on the CPU die, due to power and size constraints in the socket. High-end CPUs are already somewhat limited by TDP constraints and adding a powerful enough GPU will add just more. I can see that shift to start happening in 2-3 years and be complete in 5, but not as soon as JPR says.

I'm talking about what the market wants though. I'm sure Intel will force the change, like not allowing IGPs for Westmere, even if they are required/wanted by a good chunk of the market...
 

TreadR

New Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
79 (0.02/day)
Likes
4
#4
AMD's 700 series consume 15W max... so I don't see those power constrains you've mentioned.
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
1,396 (0.38/day)
Likes
184
Location
Hyderabad,India
Processor AMD x2 4000+
Motherboard Jetway M2A692 GDG
Memory 1 Gb transcend Ram DDR2 667
Video Card(s) IGP ATI x1200
Storage Hitachi 160 Gb
Display(s) LG 17" CRT Flatron E700S
Case Zebronics Sivaji
Power Supply 450W
#6
So graphic cards were introduced to reduce work of CPU's and they are being put back on CPU's. Just make a powerfull CPU.(one way of seeing things)
 

DarkMatter

New Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
1,714 (0.46/day)
Likes
182
Processor Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now)
Motherboard Asus P5Q-E
Cooling Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu
Memory 4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory
Storage 74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0
Display(s) HP p1130, 21" Trinitron
Case Antec p180
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi PLatinum
Power Supply 700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency
Software Windows XP
#7
AMD's 700 series consume 15W max... so I don't see those power constrains you've mentioned.
Add those 15w to a 65w TDP CPU and you are way out of spec. Increasing the spec to contain the full consumption makes it a more expensive platform. 80 TDP for CPU socket + 20W for chipset socket is more expensive than an evenly distributed one like 65w + 35W or whatever. Extremes always cost more.

And high-end 700 consume much more than that anyway, regardless of advertised (780G easily consumes 30-35w under load). My point is that high-end IGP of today is what people wil ask for low-end in 2 years. And nowadays CPU sockets couldn't handle a high-end CPU along a mid-high IGP. I don0t see that changing too much due to costs.

Also let me doubt that Intel's x86 based IGPs are going to be any close in perf/watt to Ati's superb offerings, because that was also taken into consideration in my comment, though I didn't say. My bad.
 
Last edited:

TreadR

New Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
79 (0.02/day)
Likes
4
#8
20W for chipset? I don't know where you're getting this but as far as I know the 790FX uses less than 10W under load and since graphics are on CPU basic chipsets like the 790FX are required... that means 95 for CPU (get this... not 65!) + 15 for on-CPU GPU + 10 for chipset = 120W... there are boards out there that can handle 140W just for CPU.

You're off with that assumption, deal with it and leave the weak arguments for a some other time.
 

DarkMatter

New Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
1,714 (0.46/day)
Likes
182
Processor Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now)
Motherboard Asus P5Q-E
Cooling Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu
Memory 4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory
Storage 74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0
Display(s) HP p1130, 21" Trinitron
Case Antec p180
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi PLatinum
Power Supply 700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency
Software Windows XP
#9
20W for chipset? I don't know where you're getting this but as far as I know the 790FX uses less than 10W under load and since graphics are on CPU basic chipsets like the 790FX are required... that means 95 for CPU (get this... not 65!) + 15 for on-CPU GPU + 10 for chipset = 120W... there are boards out there that can handle 140W just for CPU.

You're off with that assumption, deal with it and leave the weak arguments for a some other time.
Erm I think you are misunderstanding what I mean. Integrated is suposedly to make things cheaper. And for the same thing the trend is to make CPUs with lesser and lesser TDPs. See latest CPUs please. 140w??? That's FAR from cheap. Can be done it, of course, but probably a IGP would be just better.

ALL that if we are asking for the best IGP possible. If we are just talking about something that will make the screen work, then yes, it wouldn't matter. But that's why I stated that I think that people are demanding more powerful IGPs and I think that won't change. I said it in my very first line, in this thread.

Regarding ATI 700 series: so how do you put a 15W chipset, a 35w-45w CPU, 1 stick of ram, one 2500rpm HDD and you end up with 100w+ of power consumption under load?? Tell me. Nah one thing is the advertised TDP and another thing is what really is happening. Constraints would not happen on paper, they would happen (and DO happen nowadays on MANY cheaper boards) on real world!! Don't talk me about specs when there are more than enough proofs out there, of true power figures and of true power constraints...

EDIT: Proof of 780G. Let's do the math 15w (780g) + 45 w (CPU) + 8w HDD + 20w memory (let's be generous)= 125w????? :eek: It looks like not to me, that gives me 88w, don't know you. Ah it must be that the memory consumes 50W, it must be that, for sure.
 
Last edited:

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
24,274 (5.51/day)
Likes
10,361
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 4790K@4.6GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z97 Extreme6
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR3-1866 9-10-9-27
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX960 STRIX @ 1500/1900
Storage 480GB Crucial MX200 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 128GB OCZ Synapse SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Corsair 650D Black
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#10
Integrating it onto another part, is still integrated. The chipset has moved to the CPU, so moving the IGP with that chipset doesn't mean it isn't integrated anymore.
 

DarkMatter

New Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
1,714 (0.46/day)
Likes
182
Processor Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now)
Motherboard Asus P5Q-E
Cooling Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu
Memory 4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory
Storage 74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0
Display(s) HP p1130, 21" Trinitron
Case Antec p180
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi PLatinum
Power Supply 700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency
Software Windows XP
#11
Integrating it onto another part, is still integrated. The chipset has moved to the CPU, so moving the IGP with that chipset doesn't mean it isn't integrated anymore.
I guess they are talking about what Larrabee integrated is supposed to be doing. AFAIK the integrated Larrabee flavour is NOT going to be a "GPU", it's going to be more like a math coprocessor which happens to be able to render DirextX at the same time it is doing other regular math ops. Like GPGPU does exactly the contrary thing. That's what I always understood from graphics on CPU "the Intel way II".
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
250 (0.06/day)
Likes
18
System Name Just another PC / HTPC
Processor AMD X4 955 BE @ 1.25V @ 3.2ghz / AMD 255
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-990XA-UD3 f14b bios/ GA-MA785GM-US2H
Cooling Noctua NH-U12P/ Scythe low profile something
Memory G.Skill 2x4GB DDR3-1600 / Adata ddr2-800 4GB
Video Card(s) Powercolor Radeon HD 6850 / Radeon HD 4670
Storage Plextor 256GB M3S / WD 640GB Black
Display(s) Dell P2214h, Samy 2233RZ 120Hz / Samy 40" HDTV
Case Lian-Li PC-7FNW / Silverstone GD05
Audio Device(s) HT Omega Claro Plus+ (CMI 8788 chip) / 4670 hdmi
Power Supply Seasonic 460W plat fanless / S12II 430B
Software W7 Pro x64 / Win 7 Pro x64
Benchmark Scores It can run the interwebs
#12
I will believe it when I see it, I doubt it happening that fast. I wonder if anyone/everyone at JPR is willing to bet their testicles on their assumption??? Anyone there JPR??? I thought so.

Next.
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
20,902 (6.25/day)
Likes
9,994
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) PowerColor PCS+ 390 8 GiB DVI + HDMI
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate 6 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" LCD (1920x1200 HDMI) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW 19" LCD (1440x900 DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek Onboard, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
#13
I can't say the general trend JPR is suggesting is incorrect because it isn't. The GPU is moving from the north bridge to the CPU. AMD would have done this long ago but they didn't for three reasons: 1) they didn't have the expertise nor resources to pursue it, 2) they didn't have enough marketing presence to dictate to chipset manufacturers a significant overhaul that moving the IGP would require, and 3) they didn't have the memory controller on the processor until Athlon 64. The first point changed when they acquired ATI. The second point changed with they started manufacturing chipsets themselves. The third they've had for quite some time but couldn't act on it until they got somewhere with the first two.

Intel, on the other hand, has had points one and two for many years but didn't have point 3 until recently; hence the move.

Now we have to watch the other corporations involved that are being pinned into a corner by the changes at AMD and Intel: VIA and NVIDIA. Both are effectively being driven out of the chipset market. NVIDIA already announced their answer: make an x86 processor to use with NVIDIA chipsets. VIA? I haven't heard anything but I suspect they will continue to support the C7 and future VIA processors but will shift manufacturing focus to other areas like ARM processors.

Essentially, the entire industry is on the verge of changing. "Integrated" graphic processors are simply relocating to where the memory controller is at. It's the ensuing battle following that paradigm shift is what's going to cause a lot of heartache.
 

TreadR

New Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
79 (0.02/day)
Likes
4
#14
EDIT: Proof of 780G. Let's do the math 15w (780g) + 45 w (CPU) + 8w HDD + 20w memory (let's be generous)= 125w????? :eek: It looks like not to me, that gives me 88w, don't know you. Ah it must be that the memory consumes 50W, it must be that, for sure.
Try to be sober if you reply!... read my previous post to get the "math".... if you can. And please do take my advice and stop posting weak arguments without a point.