Forums - PC Discussion - Valve: New Intel Microprocessor Will Bring 'Console-Like' Experience To PC

Seems like consoles get more like computers every gen and computers get more like consoles every gen. Can't wait till they are one and the same.



Around the Network

It's obvious what he means, and it is a very intelligent observation.

The biggest flaw with PC gaming, compared to the console market is non-uniform hardware. You have a huge userbase, but most of that userbase believes that for whatever reason, their PC won't play newer games(and they are usually right).

The Sandy Bridge CPU offers an all in one cpu/gpu that can represent a basic benchmark for computer game playability. In other words, if you  have a sandy bridge CPU you can play any PC game at its lowest setting at the very least(this will be coded into the games). It won't require any upgrades, and there won't be any doubt or worry that your computer can or can't play a game. It can be the PC "uniform hardware" requirement that can bring PC gaming reliability close to that of a console for the majority of gamers.

You buy an Xbox, you can play Xbox games. You buy a PS3 you can play PS3 games. You buy a PC, you can't really play PC games very well if at all. If you buy a Sandy Bridge PC you can play PC games. Win.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Seems simple enough. If this CPU increases the average graphics performance of new pc's then it can reduce the issue of system requirements for people that want to get into pc gaming, but can't afford it.



i believe he means that in the future we will reach the point where all new computers will offer the ability to play games unlike today where majority of computers cant since they do not offer dedicated graphics and internal graphics cant handle next gen games. He is trying to point out that any joe blow not willing to spend lots of money on an new pc can buy an mid range pc an be able to play games. 

But this doesn't mean ATI or Nvidia will go out of business. They would be far off the power of dedicated GPU but who knows what the future can offer. 



Of Course That's Just My Opinion, I Could Be Wrong

This "Let's slapp a low-end graphics core to the CPU because we have some space left on the die and nobody is going to ask where the ram for the GPU is located" is going absolutely nowhere. It is ultimately a stupid idea because users will have bought an expensive, high-end CPU with a low-end GPU incorporated (and you need a new mainboard for this chip as well). If you bought a new PC with a separate GPU, you could always replace the graphics card when new and better GPUS appear. Now you would be stuck with an expensive CPU/GPU hybrid (which a low-end AMD 5450 beats the crap out of it).



Around the Network

OK, let me explain.

Sandy Bridge's GPU is about equivalent to a desktop HD 5450 (the cheapest recent graphics card). It has about the rendering power of the PS3 and 360 (bear in mind that the console's resolution is only 720p normally). This means it can play console ports with decent fps on 1280x720 resolution.

Almost all PCs come with integrated or low-end discrete graphics, so this CPU (Sandy Bridge) and AMD's Bobcat (Fusion C- and E-series) will guarantee a MINIMUM graphical power of the above on most PCs. Thus game developers can finally target that and assume the mass market will be able to play them. This is a huge step over the previous baseline of rubbish Intel integrated graphics.

Some things to note though. One, the performance is still low compared to what PC gamers are used to. It won't run recent games at 1920x1200. Two, Intel's netbooks still have terrible graphics (AMD's Ontario-based netbooks will not). AMD's Llano will have much faster on-die graphics, even (5x the shader power). 

So this isn't a revolution and of course Valve were paid to say that. If anything it's Intel fixing their own past mistakes in having poor integrated graphics holding back the PC platform.



drkohler said:

This "Let's slapp a low-end graphics core to the CPU because we have some space left on the die and nobody is going to ask where the ram for the GPU is located" is going absolutely nowhere. It is ultimately a stupid idea because users will have bought an expensive, high-end CPU with a low-end GPU incorporated (and you need a new mainboard for this chip as well). If you bought a new PC with a separate GPU, you could always replace the graphics card when new and better GPUS appear. Now you would be stuck with an expensive CPU/GPU hybrid (which a low-end AMD 5450 beats the crap out of it).

The GPU is fully power gated so it doesn't use power when it isn't active. It uses ~10% of the die area. Plus AMD is doing it too, so no net loss competitvely.

It won't increase the cost of the PC because you now don't need graphics or a northbridge on the motherboard chipset.

Finally, next year Intel is putting the VRAM on the CPU package, stacked up. Problem solved.

btw Llano performance ~= HD 56xx



Soleron said:

OK, let me explain.

Sandy Bridge's GPU is about equivalent to a desktop HD 5450 (the cheapest recent graphics card). It has about the rendering power of the PS3 and 360 (bear in mind that the console's resolution is only 720p normally). This means it can play console ports with decent fps on 1280x720 resolution.

Almost all PCs come with integrated or low-end discrete graphics, so this CPU (Sandy Bridge) and AMD's Bobcat (Fusion C- and E-series) will guarantee a MINIMUM graphical power of the above on most PCs. Thus game developers can finally target that and assume the mass market will be able to play them. This is a huge step over the previous baseline of rubbish Intel integrated graphics.

Some things to note though. One, the performance is still low compared to what PC gamers are used to. It won't run recent games at 1920x1200. Two, Intel's netbooks still have terrible graphics (AMD's Ontario-based netbooks will not). AMD's Llano will have much faster on-die graphics, even (5x the shader power). 

So this isn't a revolution and of course Valve were paid to say that. If anything it's Intel fixing their own past mistakes in having poor integrated graphics holding back the PC platform.

there are also some performance advantages to having the GPU on the same die as there is no delay in communication between the two and greater bandwidth. And the next gen chips (and possibly AMDs fusion chips) will support open CL so if you add a dedicated GPU you could use the integrated one for physics acceleration or just for low demanding applications to save power etc.



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

Soleron said:

a) Finally, next year Intel is putting the VRAM on the CPU package, stacked up. Problem solved.

b) btw Llano performance ~= HD 56xx

a) cost? TDP?
b) not even close. A Radeon HD5550 DDR3/1333 has a memory bandwidth of 25.6GB/s, Llano (if really using DDR3/1833) has a bandwidth of 29.9GB/s .. for BOTH units... go figure



In regards to this im going to keep quiet for the time being... It intrigues me ^^



Yeah i know my spelling sucks but im dysgraphic so live with it :3    

---------------------------------------------------Bets--------------------------------------------------

Conegamer - I say that the PS3 will beat the DS next week in Japan  (for hardware sales) Forfeit is control over others avatar for 1 week.