Intel leaving high-end gaming chipset market to ATI and Nvidia

[Plaicd]

Saw this on digitimes.

http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060626PR204.html

Intel leaving high-end gaming chipset market to ATI and Nvidia


Although Intel plans to roll out the Bearlake chipset family in the second quarter of 2007 to upgrade its 965 series chipsets, which were only introduced this month, the company will not deliver a follow-up version of the 975X chipset before the end of the first half of next year, sources that have reviewed Intel's latest product roadmap indicated.

The sources indicated that Intel was leaving the high-end chipset market open in order to attract companies that own dual-graphics technology, such as Nvidia's SLI and ATI Technologies' CrossFire, to develop their own high-end chipset solutions for the Intel platform and reduce those companies' focus on the AMD platform, the sources noted.

In addition, although Intel has reached a licensing agreement with ATI to allow its 955X and 975X chipsets to support ATI's dual-graphics technology, the agreement has been discontinued from Intel's 965 chipsets onward, sources at Taiwan motherboard makers indicated. Nvidia's SLI technology is not officially supported on any of those chipsets, the sources added.

In line with Intel's Conroe launch, ATI will introduce a CrossFire-compliant PCI Express X16 chipset, the RD600, according to the sources.

Nvidia's nForce 590 SLI Intel Edition platform, which consists of the C51XE northbridge partnered with the MCP55 southbridge, will initially be released to the market to support Intel's upcoming Conroe processors, indicated the sources. In the fourth quarter of 2006, Nvidia will launch an upgraded version of the C51XE, the C55 northbridge chip, which supporta a 1333MHz FSB and DDR2-800 of memory, the sources added.

[ghent915]

Hmm....very interesting.
A lot to me will ride on the OTHER feature set of a motherboard, not just multi-GPU usage. I may be weird, but, I still haven't gone SLI/CF. I'd rather get a top of the line mobo, near top CPU, overclock, and get a good GFX card.

The 965 chipsets look quite nice to me, but, the SLI 590 preview also looks spiffy. A lot to think on for me really, which certainly beats a lack of choices.

Just my $0.02
-Ghent

[vapb400]

That is rather interesting, I actually think that would work to draw manufacturers away from AMD.

I hope nvidia doesn't make us wait til C55 til we can overclock well

[zert]

I hope nvidia doesn't make us wait til C55 til we can overclock well

it would be nice, seeing how the current C51 OC's. a 590 chip performing on Conroe like it does on AM2 would be nice an interresting. although i wouldn't put my money on it if i where you.

[alucasa]

I guess the BadAxe's lifespan will be quite long, eh.

[Nazu]

It's not a problem if Nvidia Intel mobo's wouldn't suck at oc'ing and I think that Nvidia will continue on making better Amd mobos than Intel ones. Ati hasn't convinced me yet but the RD600 seems good.

[StealthyFish]

time to look for hacked drivers for the i965 chipset (SLI//CF), lol

[JoeBar]

Seems that my 975 will last a long time...

[Haltech]

RD600 is looking like the better choice here. Doesnt require all of that cooling neither.

[Haltech]

I guess the BadAxe's lifespan will be quite long, eh.

Not according to all of the dead bad axe posts...

[cupholder2.0]

I don't even care about SLI/CF anymore...it seems that almost every refresh of a card is able to match the older card SLIed or CFed. Getting one high end card gives adequate performance while keeping price lower. I only game at 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 4xAA 8xAF. So the 965 is still fine for me, but ofcourse, all options are open .

[i||uSi0n^]

I don't even care about SLI/CF anymore...it seems that almost every refresh of a card is able to match the older card SLIed or CFed. Getting one high end card gives adequate performance while keeping price lower. I only game at 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 4xAA 8xAF. So the 965 is still fine for me, but ofcourse, all options are open .

ditto..never want to ditch out that much money on SLI/CF anwayz to just play games, just a single highend card does all that i need

i||uSi0n^

[J-Mag]

it seems that almost every refresh of a card is able to match the older card SLIed or CFed.

Wrong! You don't know what you are talking about here...

7800gtx SLI > 7900gtx
7800gt SLI > 7900gt
x1800xt X-fire > x1900xtx

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1...0/index.x?pg=8

[StixxX]

Ati isalso doing things right without needing any master cards out and with x1800 being in low 200usd how can u not go with that than paying more for a x1900xtx and also its funny..reading this..http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32667

[Nazu]

Wrong! You don't know what you are talking about here...

7800gtx SLI > 7900gtx
7800gt SLI > 7900gt
x1800xt X-fire > x1900xtx

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1...0/index.x?pg=8

I think he meant like 6800 Ultra SLI vs 7800GTX and X850XT PE CF vs X1800XT PE.

[J-Mag]

I think he meant like 6800 Ultra SLI vs 7800GTX and X850XT PE CF vs X1800XT PE.

Now this statement is up for debate, because there are many instances where a 6800 Ultra SLI rig will outperform a 7800gtx rig.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2...x/index.x?pg=6

This shows that the Ultras win every time except for HL2 which they are pretty close to even and the BF2 demo which should be thrown out anyway...

[m0da]

i doubt the older cards will keep up in future games though, whatdy'all think?

[J-Mag]

i doubt the older cards will keep up in future games though, whatdy'all think?

I agree the depreciation of video cards performance relative to new games is a non linear curve and accelerates the older the card is, if the game settings remain constant.

[cupholder2.0]

Wrong! You don't know what you are talking about here...

7800gtx SLI > 7900gtx
7800gt SLI > 7900gt
x1800xt X-fire > x1900xtx

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1...0/index.x?pg=8

Well ofcourse, its not always like that. Not every refresh, sometimes it takes 2+ refreshs. It might even take a brand you generation. But the point is that graphic cards come out very quickly.Like someone said, SLI 6800 Ultra vs 7800 GTX, 7900 SLI GTX vs 7950 gx2. I realize that the single card does not always win, but it comes close or is a better bang for the buck. One high end card seems to be able to do the trick on games, and for me thats good enough. Maybe if you were a person who ran at very high res, you might need SLI.

[cupholder2.0]

Now this statement is up for debate, because there are many instances where a 6800 Ultra SLI rig will outperform a 7800gtx rig.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2...x/index.x?pg=6

This shows that the Ultras win every time except for HL2 which they are pretty close to even and the BF2 demo which should be thrown out anyway...

It doesnt matter if the 6800 Ultra SLI still beats the 7800GTX is those benchmarks. The 7800gtx is pretty close for only being a single card. It uses less power than the 2 cards and it costs less then 2 6800 Ultras. Dont get me wrong, SLI/CF can be useful, but it depends on your needs...

[ShiningArcanine]

Intel's leaving the high end market to ATI and Nvidia to attract them to its platform does not make sense because the only way it would drive them from its platform would be if Intel's graphics solutions were not compatible with AMD's processors.

[J-Mag]

Well ofcourse, its not always like that. Not every refresh, sometimes it takes 2+ refreshs.

7800gtx SLI > 7900gtx

The above example is two refreshes

It might even take a brand you generation. But the point is that graphic cards come out very quickly.Like someone said, SLI 6800 Ultra vs 7800 GTX, 7900 SLI GTX vs 7950 gx2.

what's your point here?

I realize that the single card does not always win,

WTF are you smoking. You should have said I realize that the single card RARELY WINS (almost never actually). In every example I found the SLI of a previous refresh beats out its younger sibling by a decent margin EXCEPT for the 6800ultra halflife scenario.

but it comes close or is a better bang for the buck. One high end card seems to be able to do the trick on games, and for me thats good enough. Maybe if you were a person who ran at very high res, you might need SLI.

I think we all know that SLI is not the best bang for your buck because it will never double your GPU rendering power but will always double your cost. I agree need is relative to the individual... Personally I have a hard time playing games lower than 1600x1200 4xAA...

It doesnt matter if the 6800 Ultra SLI still beats the 7800GTX is those benchmarks. The 7800gtx is pretty close for only being a single card. It uses less power than the 2 cards and it costs less then 2 6800 Ultras. Dont get me wrong, SLI/CF can be useful, but it depends on your needs...

pretty close? Are you blind?

examples here:

Doom3 @ 1280x1024 4xAA 8xAF trdelta1
Ultras = 160fps
gtx = 120fps

Thats a 25% difference.

Doom3 @ 1280x1024 4xAA 8xAF trdemo2
Ultras = 130fps
gtx = 91fps

Thats a 30% difference.

Far Cry 4xAA 8xAF tr1-volcano
Ultras = 134fps
gtx = 103fps

Thats a 24% difference.

I guess your definition of "close" is different than mine...

It is interesting to note that the gtx smoked the SLI ultras when running HDR on far Cry. THis again supports my theory that as GPUs age and newer games are released with additional features (in this case not a newer game, but new feature) they loose performance to a greater degree than more recent cards. However, it is almost always the case that two of the second most recent cards will outperform one of the most recent.

[Silver Bullet]

I still think a single card is just fine for people running 19" LCDs (1280x1024) . I guess if you really need some super frame rate it might be worth it, but for mid range LCDs (which are i think now more common than high end CRTs), a single top end card is just fine, as long as you have the system to back it up. I understand SLI/CF if you running 20"wide or better .. but otherwise personally its just a waste of money. As for intel backing out of the highend .. seems kinda of a cope out to me.. there should be just 1 dual video card standard and be done with it ... same stuff and HD-DVD vs Blueray ... come on people .. just work together .. (I do realize why they don't but it be nice .. won't it)

[cupholder2.0]

7800gtx SLI > 7900gtx

The above example is two refreshes



what's your point here?



WTF are you smoking. You should have said I realize that the single card RARELY WINS (almost never actually). In every example I found the SLI of a previous refresh beats out its younger sibling by a decent margin EXCEPT for the 6800ultra halflife scenario.



I think we all know that SLI is not the best bang for your buck because it will never double your GPU rendering power but will always double your cost. I agree need is relative to the individual... Personally I have a hard time playing games lower than 1600x1200 4xAA...



pretty close? Are you blind?

examples here:

Doom3 @ 1280x1024 4xAA 8xAF trdelta1
Ultras = 160fps
gtx = 120fps

Thats a 25% difference.

Doom3 @ 1280x1024 4xAA 8xAF trdemo2
Ultras = 130fps
gtx = 91fps

Thats a 30% difference.

Far Cry 4xAA 8xAF tr1-volcano
Ultras = 134fps
gtx = 103fps

Thats a 24% difference.

I guess your definition of "close" is different than mine...

It is interesting to note that the gtx smoked the SLI ultras when running HDR on far Cry. THis again supports my theory that as GPUs age and newer games are released with additional features (in this case not a newer game, but new feature) they loose performance to a greater degree than more recent cards. However, it is almost always the case that two of the second most recent cards will outperform one of the most recent.

The point was that buying graphic cards in SLI/CF will generally produce good performance but will be outperformed by a single card from a few refreshes or a generation(s) later which will be much cheaper, therefore purchasing a high end single card is a better option for most users who don’t have endless flows of money. Yes I said the single card (7800GTX) "does not always win", and what falsifications have I made with that statement? ABSOLUTLY NONE.
Before you go on flaming like an ignorant idiot about my post regarding the performance of the 7800 GTX in comparison with the SLI 6800 Ultras, you need to read what I originally posted. I said the performance was fairly close CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE 7800 GTX WAS A SINGLE CARD. It would have costed twice as much to buy SLI 6800 Ultra but you get no where near twice the performance of a single 7800 GTX. The single 6800 Ultra would have been able to play most games at good resolutions and AA/AF for the games which existed during its time, adding a second card which will be outperformed or be matched by a single card later seems rather purposeless. Buying two is pointless (for most people) because it is outdated far too quickly for the amount of monkey it costs(I think we agree on this part).


About the benchmarks:
The 7800 GTX does in fact win sometimes at higher resolutions.

Battlefield 2 1600x1200
Dual 6800 Ultras = 93
7800 GTX = 93

DOOM3 1600x1200
Dual 6800 Ultras = 97
7800 GTX = 90

Everquest 2 1600x1200
Dual 6800 Ultras = 37
7800 GTX = 43

Half Life 2 1600x1200
Dual 6800 Ultras = 128
7800 GTX = 136

Splinter Cell Chaos Theory 1600 x 1200
Dual 6800 Ultras = 75
7800 GTX = 83


Lets take a look at a few more benchmarks from different cards

Splinter Cell 1280x1024
DUAL 6600 GT's = 57fps.
6800 GT = 74 fps

Far Cry 1280x1024
DUAL 6600 GT's = 55 fps
6800 GT = 63 fps

Half Life 2 1280x1024
DUAL 6600 GT's = 90 fps
6800 GT = 88 fps

UT2004 1280x1024
DUAL 6600 GT's = 47 fps
6800 GT = 61 fps

DOOM3 1280x1024 (HIGH) 4xAA/8xAF
DUAL 6600 GT's = 53 fps
6800 GT = 59

Got those benchmarks from
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33835306







http://www.nvnews.net/previews/gefor...x/page_3.shtml
Yes, I know those cards are 6800 GT’s,. but the performance to the 6800 Ultras should be similar. In some of those benchmarks the 7800 GTX smokes SLI 6800 GTs, so it will atleast beat or match the ultras.

Aside from this, SLI/CF uses much more power, takes more space, makes more heat and is a horrible "bang for the buck". And that is why I stated that I did not desire SLI or CF. Its simply not worth it for the vast majority of people.

[cupholder2.0]

I still think a single card is just fine for people running 19" LCDs (1280x1024) . I guess if you really need some super frame rate it might be worth it, but for mid range LCDs (which are i think now more common than high end CRTs), a single top end card is just fine, as long as you have the system to back it up. I understand SLI/CF if you running 20"wide or better .. but otherwise personally its just a waste of money. As for intel backing out of the highend .. seems kinda of a cope out to me.. there should be just 1 dual video card standard and be done with it ... same stuff and HD-DVD vs Blueray ... come on people .. just work together .. (I do realize why they don't but it be nice .. won't it)

QFT