There is something in the article about Nvidia: "Intel, meanwhile, is no friend to Nvidia, having paid out $1.5 billion in licensing fees since 2011. The enemy of my enemy is my friend—that's one explanation for how the deal came about."I think it's odd that they teamed up with amd instead of nvidia, whom they don't compete with. I guess amd has more experience with onboard cpu graphics, but it just seems weird that they'd be working with intel.
I think they're going to undercut their own chips. Intel already has the higher IPC for processors, and now they're going to have the better onboard graphics, which was the one thing amd had over them. unless amd is going to give them a crappier version of what's going into their own chips, but that would be pointless for intel.
EDIT: also, it looks like they might be going back to cartridge style processors, like the pentium 2. or maybe it's just that form factor for laptops.
Yeah I agree. Still, those processors will probably be pretty expensive (like everything Intel does) and AMD's market will, probably, stay untouched.Ah, i didn't see that part about intel v nvidia. but after reading it, it does make a little more sense why they went with amd instead.
and NO I don't think amd will stop making processors. At least i hope they don't stop. I'm just saying it seems like it would be cutting into what little profits they have now.
What he is saying is, that AMD processors had the advantage of a superior iGPU. Now that won't be the case anymore.AMD have different departments so the CPUs are not affected.
Yeah. The office guy will never be able to tell the difference between two iGPUs, and the "power user" will never use it, so I guess if they are good or not it doesn't really matter.I never liked on chip graphics as video cards are always better especially when they are 128 bit or better.
What he is saying is, that AMD processors had the advantage of a superior iGPU. Now that won't be the case anymore.