A video card with a P4 9 replies

Please wait...

carl4286

Revenge was here.

50 XP

14th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,605 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

Why hasn't Intel done this yet? For very GPU intensive games, Intel could come out with some new cutting-edge cards with 512 megs of DDR3, and a Pentium 4 (mobile... for laptops) processor at 2.2GHz or so... The card could end up costing in the $700 to $800 range... maybe $900, and take up three PCI slots.... but for real enthusiasts, with a lot of money, it could be a really popular card. :naughty: If a laptop can fit a P4 mobile, and power it among other things for hours on one battery, it cant be too big or power consuming...




Eagle One

:-D

50 XP

22nd December 2003

0 Uploads

2,992 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

thats like asking why dont they make a 128-bit 6.6Ghz because i would like one and i think lots of people would to

and besides, intel dont make graphics cards, they contribute to onboard i think but as far as i no its currently really only ATI and nVidia who make graphics cards.




turtile

The forums staffers think I'm Cool

50 XP

24th November 2004

0 Uploads

152 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago

First off, Intel has no idea how to make good architecture for the cards. Are you blind, have you seen the size of the heatsink? How do you think this would ever fit?




carl4286

Revenge was here.

50 XP

14th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,605 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago

Like I said, mobile P4's can fit into laptops that are 2cm thick, and they have no problems cooling. Doesn't seem that far out to me.




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#5 13 years ago

CPUs are not designed to render graphics, and as a consequence cannot render graphics. Moreover, Intel's core competency where microprocessors are concerned is with CPUs; in GPU design and production, they're many times outclassed by the likes of ATI and nVidia.




Kilobyte

What does the Fox say?

69,060 XP

23rd November 2002

0 Uploads

6,468 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago
carl4286Why hasn't Intel done this yet? For very GPU intensive games, Intel could come out with some new cutting-edge cards with 512 megs of DDR3, and a Pentium 4 (mobile... for laptops) processor at 2.2GHz or so...

Intel hasn't done this yet, because it would be too expensive to research such a card, and would bring in little return. To make money, Intel has to sell tens of thousands of chips. $800 cards, wouldn't sell well in the face of dual $400 nVidia cards.

Hollywood might by them, but they tend to be leary of new technology. Besides nVidia, ATI, and Matrox (others?) have already covered the Workstation GPU side.

I wouldn't buy it anyway. nVidia GPUs are more optimized for graphics. AMDs, or IBM Motorola processors would be more than twice as effecient for graphics.

I wonder why IBM, or Motorola, or AMD haven't done this...




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#7 13 years ago

-Motorola specialises in communications chips, and processors related therein. -AMD has the same core competency problems that Intel does. Moreover, they lack the capital to even consider it with a straight face. -IBM no longer manufactures physical products.




Kilobyte

What does the Fox say?

69,060 XP

23rd November 2002

0 Uploads

6,468 Posts

0 Threads

#8 13 years ago
C38368-Motorola specialises in communications chips, and processors related therein.

Now anyway, they used to make the Macintosh processors, and then had something to do with the G4, and G5 processors (I forgot what).

Well, I had trouble thinking of an AMD GPU with a straight face... :D

carl4286, Want a more powerfull card, get a workstation one, such as an ATI FireGL.




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#9 13 years ago

Bad idea if you don't use your computer like a workstation, M_u. Those massive WS cards (like the FireGL) have close to zip for otherwise-critial things like fill rate and can't render games for squat.

No doubt Motorola used to, but as with many companies they now focus primarily on communications chips (though they do still at least manufacture--if not design--some processors, but not on anything like the scale AMD does, much less Intel).




PitaBred

I wubs teh n0e... to poop on!

50 XP

1st February 2000

0 Uploads

176 Posts

0 Threads

#10 13 years ago

There are SO many things wrong with this thread... sheesh.

and besides, intel dont make graphics cards, they contribute to onboard i think but as far as i no its currently really only ATI and nVidia who make graphics cards.

Yes, Intel DOES make graphics cards. They make quite a few for workstation-class computers, things that don't need heavy graphics capabilities.

C38368-Motorola specialises in communications chips, and processors related therein. -AMD has the same core competency problems that Intel does. Moreover, they lack the capital to even consider it with a straight face. -IBM no longer manufactures physical products.

Motorola: Yes. They got out of the Power business with Apple. AMD's money-maker has traditionally been flash chips, actually. Not processors. And Intel is currently hitting them where it hurts by cutting their prices on flash. IBM actually manufactures all of Apple's processors, and has fabrication deals with AMD. They are mostly a services company, but they have so many competencies and are so large, it's hard to fathom.

And to answer the core question: Intel doesn't want to diversify too much. Too much complexity leads to weakness. Make a standard interface, and let other people connect to that to get what they want done.