Print
Intel no longer plans on pursuing discrete graphics, the chip maker announced in a blog post today titled "An Update On Our Graphics-related Programs."
"We will not bring a discrete graphics product to market, at least in the short-term," wrote Bill Kircos, Intel's Director of Product and Technology PR. "As we said in December, we missed som key product milestones."
Putting a positive spin on the announcement, Intel used the opportunity to talk up its mobile graphics strategy, though never really delved into any real detail about the company's future products.
"Our top priority continues to be around delivering an outstanding processor that addresses every day, general purpose computer needs and provides leadership visual computing experiences via processor graphics," Kircos explained. "We are further boosting funding and employee expertise here, and continue to champion the rapid shift to mobile wireless computing and HD video - we are laser-focused on these areas."
As for Larrabee, Kircos said Intel is executing on a business opportunity derived from the Larrabee program, but the project as you know it is dead, at least for the foreseeable future.
Image Credit: Intel
Comments are closed on this article
Talcum X
May 26, 2010 at 9:15am
This is thier 2nd attempt at this (I believe) and then punt. Leave this arena and stick to the things you know best.
***********
Every morning is the dawn of a new error.
"In Ireland, there are more drunks per capita than people." - Peter Griffin
Keith E. Whisman
May 26, 2010 at 8:08am
I kinda figured we weren't going to see Larabe because it was supposed to come out early last year and it was going to be slower then any of it's competition. Intel just isn't capable of competing in the fast paced world of GPU's. They are used to their CPU's lasting a year or two on the market while GPU's will live for about six months or so before the competition buries it. Besides games also help GPU's sell because new games will always be released that make that new high end graphics card in your machine turn out frame rates in the single digit range making you beg the GPU suppliers for faster graphics cards. The CPU just doesn't have that kind of problem. So Intel just isn't used to it and probably doesn't have it's money setup for that kind of high speed RnD and production schedule. But I was really hoping Intel would come to compete in the graphics market beyond that crappy excuse of a GPU known as an Intel Graphics Accelerator.
Slugbait
May 25, 2010 at 4:39pm
If you press your nose up against your monitor, and squint your eyes just right to see across the Interwebs, you'll be able to see the shocked look on my face...
I Jedi
May 25, 2010 at 3:20pm
I am actually fairly surprised by this move from Intel. Intel and Nvidia have a long history (not nice) together in the GPU/CPU market. Intel wants Nvidia's head on a platter and vice versa. Anyways, it's interesting to see that Intel finally decided that they were way too far behind to make any real dent in Nvidia's sharehold of the GPU market. I think Intel did the right move and decided to stick with what it does best: CPU
Neufeldt2002
May 25, 2010 at 1:17pm
I'm actually a little disappointed in this. I was hoping for a comparable product that could further increase competative products in this field. The same needs to happen the cpu market as well. IMHO
Neufeldt2002
May 25, 2010 at 9:24pm
Actually I have, but I still maintain that competition is good for all markets, no matter how crappy the product.
Caboose
May 25, 2010 at 1:45pm
From Intel?
They couldn't produce a proper GPU (or IGP) to save themselves. I'm not surprised that they dropped out of the descrete graphics market, let ATi/AMD and nVidia produce the graphics adapters, and Intel can go back to producing sub-par and crappy IGP.
-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-
Caboose
May 26, 2010 at 8:11am
Not from Intel you won't...
-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-
