Wednesday, August 12th 2020

Xe-HPG is the Performance Gaming Graphics Architecture to Look Out for from Intel

Intel appears to have every intention of addressing the performance gaming segment with its Xe graphics architecture. According to information leaked to the web by VideoCardz, Xe-HPG (high performance gaming?) represents a product vertical dedicated to the gaming segment. Among the other verticals are Xe-HPC (high performance compute). The Xe-HPG graphics architecture is being developed for a 2021 market launch. It will feature all the client-segment staples, including a conventional PCI-Express interface, and GDDR6 memory instead of HBM. Intel may also eye DirectX 12 Ultimate logo compliance. Intel's Xe discrete GPU and scalar processor development is already de-coupled with Intel's foundry business development, and so the company could contract external foundries to manufacture these chips.

As for specs, it is learned that each Xe-HP "tile" (a silicon die sub-unit that adds up in MCMs for higher tiers of Xe scalar processors), features 512 execution units (EUs). Compare this to the Xe-LP iGPU solution found in the upcoming "Tiger Lake" processor, which has 96. Intel has been able to design scalar processors with up to four tiles, adding up to 2,048 EUs. It remains to be seen if each tile on the scalar processors also include the raster hardware needed for the silicon to function as a GPU. The number of tiles on Xe-HPG are not known, but it reportedly features GDDR6 memory, and so the tile could be a variation of the Xe-HP. Intel SVP and technology head Raja Koduri is expected to detail the near-future of Intel architectures at a virtual event later today, and Xe-HPG is expected to come up.
Source: VideoCardz
Add your own comment

34 Comments on Xe-HPG is the Performance Gaming Graphics Architecture to Look Out for from Intel

#26
badtaylorx
repeat after me....

duopoly....

duuuuuuuuu-opoly.

duo=2 mono=1
Posted on Reply
#27
bug
geon2k2Yes, its called oligopoly, almost the same.

Adding some launch prices:
780 - 500$
980 - 550$
1080 - 600$
2080 - 800$

Why do you think this happens, because the market works well?

Also it depends how you look, maybe from US perspective there are 2 competitors, 3 soon, from EU perspective everything is US based. So, is there an US monopoly?
It's called a duopoly. Far from where you'd want to be, but technically not a monopoly (the difference in huge in legal terms, though, but that's a discussion for another time).

If you throw away the anomaly (Turing), the priced has remained about the same after you factor in inflation.
Posted on Reply
#28
Tom Yum
JismWrong. Intel started to assemble, IGP's in it's motherboard back in the 486/586 days which woud'nt require an external PCI or AGP card in the first place. Saving cost and a easy way for intel to gain market.
I never said the i740 was the first time that Intel had an onboard video card or was its first GPU (not that we used that term back then). I'm referring to the Intel i740 which was a dGPU made in collab with Real3D (division of Lockheed Martin at the time) that was supposed to dominate the Voodoo 2 and the upcoming nVidia TNT, in part because it was the first to use AGP rather than PCI. Instead it flopped so badly it was pulled from the market a year later.
Posted on Reply
#29
chstamos
Tom YumI never said the i740 was the first time that Intel had an onboard video card. I'm referring to the Intel i740 which was a dGPU made in collab with Real3D (division of Lockheed Martin at the time) that was supposed to dominate the Voodoo 2 and the upcoming nVidia TNT, in part because it was the first to use AGP rather than PCI. Instead it flopped so badly it was pulled from the market a year later.
You put it well in your previous post, this was intel immediately abandoning a market it did not dominate at once.

The i740 was hyped to hell and back, and that was to its detriment. That's where all the remembrances about it being a failure come from.

But it was an affordable card that performed very decently. It cost 100 bucks and performed about half as well as the 350-450 Voodoo 2 and the 350 dollar RivaTnT. That's no slouch. intel rushed to abandon it and left it with scarce driver support, but the hardware was not bad at all.

I often read how intel "might produce a flop like the i740" and chuckle. Flop? Intel with the Xe won't in its wildest dream deliver today's equivalent to the i740's image quality and performance at such a fragment of the price of today's high end gaming GPUs. That would be a coup, not a flop.
Posted on Reply
#30
Tom Yum
chstamosYou put it well in your previous post, this was intel immediately abandoning a market it did not dominate at once.

The i740 was hyped to hell and back, and that was to its detriment. That's where all the remembrances about it being a failure come from.

But it was an affordable card that performed very decently. It cost 100 bucks and performed about half as well as the 350-450 Voodoo 2 and the 350 dollar RivaTnT. That's no slouch. intel rushed to abandon it and left it with scarce driver support, but the hardware was not bad at all.

I often read how intel "might produce a flop like the i740" and chuckle. Flop? Intel with the Xe won't in its wildest dream deliver today's equivalent to the i740's image quality and performance at such a fragment of the price of today's high end gaming GPUs. That would be a coup, not a flop.
You are definitely not wrong, it was priced well for what it gave, however I am not sure if that was intended or a response to how uncompetitive it was to those higher performance cards. Intel at the time was not known for 'value', so I don't think its low price was originally intended, and the fact they basically flushed the product after a year would indicate (speculation of course) that Intel had planned to sell it with much higher margin (or cost) than they eventually achieved. Without being able to find info on die size or transistor count we'll likely never know whether Intel truly aimed to be selling it at $350 and just couldn't when it became clear how uncompetitive it was, or whether it was always meant to be midrange and was just a case of hype driving unrealistic expectations that weren't met.

Anyway, my main point was as you said, Intel has a track record of abandoning markets it doesn't dominate immediately, so it will be interesting to see if Intel stick it out this time or give up like they did with i740/iAPX432/Tinma/mobile/5G.
Posted on Reply
#31
watzupken
I am looking forward for Intel to bring more competition to the graphic card market. Currently while it seems like it is a duopoly between AMD and Nvidia, the reality is that Nvidia is still dominating the graphic space.
Posted on Reply
#32
geon2k2
bugIt's called a duopoly. Far from where you'd want to be, but technically not a monopoly (the difference in huge in legal terms, though, but that's a discussion for another time).

If you throw away the anomaly (Turing), the priced has remained about the same after you factor in inflation.
if they are 3, oligopoly, and there are 3 already, intel has the highest market share for graphics. Not performance graphics but still.
Posted on Reply
#33
bug
geon2k2if they are 3, oligopoly, and there are 3 already, intel has the highest market share for graphics. Not performance graphics but still.
True, but the original assertion was about desktop graphics.
Posted on Reply
#34
Super XP
AMD & Nvidia GPU monopoly? Umm no its not, it's called competition, and if Intel has what it takes they can jump in too. If Nvidia did launch its GPP ripoff program, then the term monopoly would have been fitting for them only.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Mar 15th, 2025 22:17 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts