bit-tech.net

Intel: the GPU gives no benefit to non-gamers

Intel: the GPU gives no benefit to non-gamers

Intel bites back at Nvidia by saying that the GPU offers no benefit outside of gaming. Not surprisingly, you should all upgrade your CPU today.

The latest happenings in the war of words and PowerPointery between Intel and Nvidia have revealed Intel’s claim that the GPU gives the user no benefit in a wide range of applications. This is sure to stoke the fire in some big green bellies.

Not surprisingly, Intel says that upgrading your CPU from a Core 2 Duo E6550 to a Core 2 Duo E8400 will deliver performance increases in 3D rendering, music, photo editing and video processing, while upgrading your GPU from a G33 integrated graphics chip to an Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX will deliver no benefits in these tasks.

Of course that’s true, but Intel goes one step further to say that upgrading your CPU—as well as your GPU—will deliver higher frame rates in games too. “For mainstream gaming, the CPU and GPU work together to deliver a great experience. For high-end gaming, a CPU and CPU upgrade puts you in the winner’s seat,” claim the slides.

Without a doubt, this is something that Nvidia will disagree with – it says that upgrading the GPU first will give you more profound benefits. Many of its recent PowerPoint presentations have claimed that upgrading from a mid-range CPU to a high-end Core 2 Extreme processor delivers little to no performance improvement—in games. And if you go back through any of our recent CPU and graphics reviews, there are definite benefits to using a faster GPU in games, while the benefits of a faster CPU aren't quite so profound.

Right now, there are no real benefits to a fast GPU outside of gaming and video decoding—two scenarios that Intel conveniently decided to leave off its PowerPointery—but Nvidia is talking up GPU-accelerated tasks like video encoding, photo editing and it is already a strong performer in 3D modelling applications like AutoCAD. One has to wonder what benchmarks Intel is using in the 3D rendering benchmark – I’d imagine it’s something like Cinebench, although if that’s the case, Intel has only run the CPU benchmark to make the numbers fit its argument.

The other thing to consider is that Intel has admitted that it will be bringing a discrete GPU to the market with Larrabee, which is believed to be targeted at 3D graphics and other highly parallel computing tasks. Now, if that’s not evidence enough that the discrete GPU has a market for tasks beyond just gaming, I don’t know what is.

Is it just me that thinks this war of words is getting a little petty? Share your thoughts in the forums.

36 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Woodstock 13th May 2008, 11:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
For high-end gaming, a CPU and CPU upgrade
shouldnt that be a CPU and GPU upgrade
p3n 13th May 2008, 11:40 Quote
Aren't intel in hot water because their gfx doesnt run vista aero properly? Irony!
Bauul 13th May 2008, 11:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodstock
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
For high-end gaming, a CPU and CPU upgrade
shouldnt that be a CPU and GPU upgrade

No, that's right, it's the situation where hardware newbies who listen to Intel's presentations upgrade their CPU because their 5900 won't play Crysis, and then upgrade the CPU again because it still doesn't work.
DXR_13KE 13th May 2008, 11:56 Quote
bring in the p-p-p-p-powerpoints!!!!!

each time intel has a peace of hardware that surpasses its direct opponent, they tend to shake their wood in every direction to show the size of their e-pen...
amacieli 13th May 2008, 11:59 Quote
Crysis really wasn't that good of a game. Enough with Crysis already. Making me cry.
Mentai 13th May 2008, 12:37 Quote
Ug I got crysis the other day. I hate it. Prettiest game in the world (at least the explosions with jungle recoiling from them, and GOD RAYS) but such awful gameplay. I don't know how it scored anything above a 6, seriously. You spend 10mins killing guys and then a helicopter starts shooting you which you have to destroy to progress, no rocket launcher is available, you resort to bullets. 5mins later you run out and resort to throwing barrels. You die. Oh what no checkpoint in that time? Or it's the opposite, you're driving along in you're tank and it's checkpointing every 30secs, so just as you're hit by a shell it saves. Who wants to reload with 2% damage left?
Maybe I'm just playing it wrong, but I'm certainly not new at fps.
/rant
amacieli 13th May 2008, 12:49 Quote
@Mentai - you hit it on the head - gameplay. All the Dooms and Quakes had it. The various Half Lifes had it. Even C&C3 with it's less-than-stellar graphics had it in spades. They were fun to play. Crysis is just not fun.
amacieli 13th May 2008, 12:53 Quote
Back on topic, though - nVidia shouldn't respond to this with more power-pointery. It should just start delivering video encoder plugins for Photoshop etc., and 3D renderers for the AutoCADs etc. Folding@Home support wouldn't be thrown out of bed either. Show us the money. Help us help you.
Gunsmith 13th May 2008, 12:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentai
Who wants to reload with 2% damage left?
Maybe I'm just playing it wrong, but I'm certainly not new at fps.

god you sound like such a consoletard, go hide in the shadows and suck your thumb for a bit, I got 5% health, 2 bullets 3 demons and a pair of balls the size of moons
Panos 13th May 2008, 13:01 Quote
Yeah, bring the Intel IGPs to play slideshows. Even AMD/ATI has the 780G which is million years away. Even when you want to use it in 3d design in a small office/company is far superior to Intel or Nvidia IGP solutions.
Jordan Wise 13th May 2008, 13:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentai
Ug I got crysis the other day. I hate it. Prettiest game in the world (at least the explosions with jungle recoiling from them, and GOD RAYS) but such awful gameplay. I don't know how it scored anything above a 6, seriously. You spend 10mins killing guys and then a helicopter starts shooting you which you have to destroy to progress, no rocket launcher is available, you resort to bullets. 5mins later you run out and resort to throwing barrels. You die. Oh what no checkpoint in that time? Or it's the opposite, you're driving along in you're tank and it's checkpointing every 30secs, so just as you're hit by a shell it saves. Who wants to reload with 2% damage left?
Maybe I'm just playing it wrong, but I'm certainly not new at fps.
/rant

no wonder you didn't enjoy playing it if you tried to take down helicopters with barrels you dumbass. you evidently missed the rocket launcher, or missed the helicopter while you still had rockets to shoot. Go and play halo, and save me of you idiocy.

and i don't know why nvidia should get bothered by this news, anyone who knows how to upgrade a CPU should know that it doesn't make f*** all difference in gaming in comparison to upgrading a GPU, so these customers who intel are trying to rope in will probably ignore this
The Infamous Mr D 13th May 2008, 13:49 Quote
I think the intended target market these subjective statements were made to impress is the people who don't know how to upgrade a CPU. Your average PC punter doesn't know, doesn't want to know, or doesn't need to know what functions each part of his or her PC performs for the tasks relative to themselves. Chances are, bigger and more impressive numbers will be what grabs their attentions, and as Intel are easily the second biggest name in the home or office PC environment, they're going to be believed.

And yes, Crysis left me very cold as well.
DarkMatter83 13th May 2008, 14:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentai
Ug I got crysis the other day. I hate it. Prettiest game in the world (at least the explosions with jungle recoiling from them, and GOD RAYS) but such awful gameplay. I don't know how it scored anything above a 6, seriously. You spend 10mins killing guys and then a helicopter starts shooting you which you have to destroy to progress, no rocket launcher is available, you resort to bullets. 5mins later you run out and resort to throwing barrels. You die. Oh what no checkpoint in that time? Or it's the opposite, you're driving along in you're tank and it's checkpointing every 30secs, so just as you're hit by a shell it saves. Who wants to reload with 2% damage left?
Maybe I'm just playing it wrong, but I'm certainly not new at fps.
/rant

Wooaah! I've been entering this site since the first day and I never posted. But I had to register only to reply to your post, your post is that stupid!!

I dunno, I guess Crysis is for smart people, but I didn't tought it was to that extent...
First of all, F5 (or F6 can't remember, you can cahnge it anyway) is for quick saving (in almost every game BTW), if you are not smart enough to use it, take your computer and return it. Buy a lame console and enjoy it's games full of checkpoint saving. Anyway if you lose your tank, poor baby, go on foot until you find the next one and kill the tanks with the rocket launchers that enemies drop, just like real men do.

Second, you don't have to kill helis to advance if you don't want to, but there are rocket launchers everywhere, you just have to find where. And it's easy, since they are always close to where the helicopters appear, usually in huts. And there are plenty of them, just in case you miss lots of hits. Indeed that's one of the things I didn't like in the game. It's really open gameplay when you have the answer so close to you, whenever a problem appears? When an enemy helicopter attacks you TAKE COVER and then use cloack or maximum speed to go from cover to cover until you find the weapons, it's really easy.

Don't blame a game because of your incompetence...
Mentai 13th May 2008, 14:08 Quote
I tried to take it down with explosive barrels using the super strength as an act of frustration after Looking for the rockets in the area for 5mins. It's after that 5mins, and many other similar situations that the game becomes unfun.
As for act of going invisi to look for weapons, taking cover while it recharges, rinse repeat over and over because the area you play in is so large, I also don't find that fun. The fact is by the tank section I was incredibly tired of going on foot, the tanks were the most fun I'd had all game, I didn't want to let it end so quickly by going on foot Again. As for the checkpoint thing, if it's going to be implemented, it should be implemented properly. The reason I don't hit F5 all the time is because occasionally the checkpoints work, so I got used to not using it. I understand what I was supposed to be doing at each point, but it just seemed like the game was making me work for it unnecessarily. Whatever.
Obviously this gameplay style isn't for me, and my first rant (which was a half joke, the individual points not meant to be taken seriously, strange sense of humour?) was hasty since I had just stopped playing it and was feeling slightly bitter about my $100 lost, but I've had just as many people agree with me as I have had insult me. So I don't think I'm alone in my opinion.
Also don't be so quick to brand me as a console tard just because I have impatience when it comes to poor level design, years of playing games from valve has obviously spoiled me.

Oh and sorry about the derailment of the thread. In terms of Intel's random propoganda, they're kinda right... I mean, most people have absolutely no need for a gpu, and it just takes talking to someone at a local store to know that you need one to play games. I don't think Intel need to bother announcing it though, it just makes non news news items.
DarkMatter83 13th May 2008, 14:14 Quote
On topic,

Oh my God, Intel really is scared if they feel they have to make a powerpoint only to point that out. (sorry for the pun :-P)

Anyway they should be scared, since GPGPUs can really take a lot of Intel's market share. And not only that, but most of high-end desktop CPU are bought by gamers. If Nvidia or AMD demostrate that a faster (or an extra) GPU can make games run a lot faster, while providing strong overall performance at the same time, thanks to GPGPUs, Intel will definately not sell any high-end CPU anymore.

EDIT: when I say "run games faster", I mean in other things besides rendering of course.
LeMaltor 13th May 2008, 14:16 Quote
I'm going to upgrade my soundcard FTW :D
Gunsmith 13th May 2008, 14:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentai
I had just stopped playing it and was feeling slightly bitter about my $100 lost

clearly saw you coming.
loler 13th May 2008, 14:46 Quote
Intel is just pissed off because their IGP's sucks so much that they even lag running a power point presentation LOL
Dreaming 13th May 2008, 14:49 Quote
I think I agree more with nvidia rather than intel on this. I always recommend to a friend if they're gaming then the graphics and having enough ram are the most crucial components. Processors have surpassed the requirements of nearly all games (except maybe supcom), the standard calculations going on in games isn't a bottleneck like the graphics is.

Also have to agree Crysis has absolutely **** gameplay. It's a graphics demo, nothing more.
chicorasia 13th May 2008, 15:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by amacieli
Back on topic, though - nVidia shouldn't respond to this with more power-pointery. It should just start delivering video encoder plugins for Photoshop etc., and 3D renderers for the AutoCADs etc. Folding@Home support wouldn't be thrown out of bed either. Show us the money. Help us help you.

I agree.

nVidia already has a substantial installed hardware base, with all the GeForce 8 series cards out there (on PCs and Macs....). Throw in some basic photoshop CUDA-based plugins - blur, rotate, noise, transform - and some encoders for Premiere, Final Cut and Quick Time, and let's see Intel scrambling to produce more Powerpoints!
frontline 13th May 2008, 16:01 Quote
Some games do depend on CPU 'grunt' (if not actually utilising multiple cores at the minute) , eg source engine games. I've played Day of Defeat Source and TF2 using a Phenom 9600 clocked at 2.3ghz and a QX6800 clocked at 3.2ghz (the Phenom with a Radeon 3870 X2 and a single 3870 in Crossfire X, the Core 2 Extreme with a single Radeon 3870 X2) and get almost double the average frame-rates on the Intel system. On the other hand, the 3 GPU's with the Phenom offer a far better framerate in COD 4 than the QX6800 with a single 3870X2.
Dreaming 13th May 2008, 17:29 Quote
I think if you're benchmarking towards the high end you want the best of everything, but if someone is getting choppy framerates in any game then unless they have a really old processor (socket a athlon for example) then a graphics upgrade would provide the best and most instant improvement. Even if I underclock my CPU it still doesn't impact game performance noticeably, only on benchmark scores.
Breach 13th May 2008, 18:09 Quote
In the end every level has its own requirements. Use the internet and do some light gaming? Onboard graphics with a Core 2 anything will get you by just fine. Hardcore gaming and video encoding/rendering, then you need the big toys to get good performance. Seems obvious that someone who cruises the web most has no use for an 8800 GT for example, it will not render a web page any faster.
lamboman 13th May 2008, 18:11 Quote
Of course, the bottom end of the spectrum, integrated graphics, will be no worse than a dedicated graphics card when it comes to the boring stuff. But, I don't agree that a CPU AND GPU upgrade will help. A GPU upgrade will help; the CPU upgrade has been proven time and time again to have a small to non-existant performance increase.
cpemma 13th May 2008, 19:21 Quote
One of the incentives for companies to put in an expensive GPU must be Vista's "Windows Experience Index" scoring method. Never mind the fact that you just want to do office work and surf, a base score under 3 is basically inferring your computer is crap, even if CPU, memory, and HDD are scoring 5.9. Numbers are what we've been trained to react to. :(
C-Sniper 13th May 2008, 20:36 Quote
IIRC, Folding at Home has found a way to make a GPU a useable feature in calculating its protien folding. if that could be incorporated into a normal PC wouldn't that make a better use of it? It already prooves intel wrong.
Kahuna513 13th May 2008, 20:41 Quote
Wait, it's a pretty elementary question, but who reads these powerpoints anyway?
Haltech 13th May 2008, 22:55 Quote
Kinda hypocritical dont yah think. If Intel proves that having a GPU dosnt have a major effect on non-games than why bother putting one intergrated into a CPU? Note: Dont follow what Intel says, follow what Intel does.
ssj12 13th May 2008, 23:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauul
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodstock
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
For high-end gaming, a CPU and CPU upgrade
shouldnt that be a CPU and GPU upgrade

No, that's right, it's the situation where hardware newbies who listen to Intel's presentations upgrade their CPU because their 5900 won't play Crysis, and then upgrade the CPU again because it still doesn't work.

or he is talking about using a skulltrail board.
Aterius Gmork 13th May 2008, 23:33 Quote
It depends on the upgrade guys. I have a P4 3Ghz and a 1900GT. Now tell me upgrading my CPU wouldn't help a bit. I need to "update" = replace my rig.^^
LordPyrinc 14th May 2008, 00:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMaltor
I'm going to upgrade my soundcard FTW :D

Thanks for making me laugh... I thoroughly enjoyed that one. ;)
Amon 14th May 2008, 01:05 Quote
Depends on the games. I don't know of any casual Starcraft, World of Warcraft, Diablo, and Counter-Strike 1.6 players around the world who need a 9800 GTX. Likewise, a LAN cafe doesn't need to have a Intel Core 2 Quad Extreme processor and multi-card graphics in every one of their computers to be considered gamer-class.
wuyanxu 14th May 2008, 08:16 Quote
both are talking BS.

GPU and CPU are both very important, you cannot have 1 super powerful and 1 really weak. so you really need to upgrade both at the same time.
kenco_uk 14th May 2008, 12:27 Quote
The next big thing on the net is web3d (or web3d 2.0 :) ). This will put a demand on a sufficiently powered gpu to be able to actually display it. People may pooh-pooh Second Life et al, but then back in the 90's, the internet we have today seemed unbelievable back then. The trouble is the installed base of Intel based laptops - the majority of which will only have Intel's GMA chip at best, which tbh is just about enough to play The Sims or Roller Coaster Tycoon, but little else - this could be a major factor in the 'holding back' of web3d. As more shop shelf PC's (desk and laptops) come with half decent gfx cards, it'll be a while before web3d can take off with a sizeable userbase.

Obviously, the other factor is the speed of the internet (or lack thereof).
MrMonroe 16th May 2008, 21:23 Quote
As CUDA becomes more widely used most of this will become completely false as the GPGPU will start helping out a lot in these areas. Certainly it will be tough to tell whether money is better spent on a better CPU or a GPU.

Also, no **** having a powerful graphics card does nothing in "music performance." Who are they kidding? And what kind of "performance increase" does a powerful CPU give you? iTunes switches tracks faster?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums