epicfail.

And there you have it, folks. It's oversupply bleeding into other form factors in the OEM market. Clearly not intended to be a consumer standalone product.

They likely want to wait for a true consumer card. I wouldn't blame them for waiting until they have something that warrants a few more bucks per unit to ship to consumers.

I just dont see the appeal at this point, shipping something with an intel igpu sure but this? just comes across as E-waste tbh

ZoneDymoI just dont see the appeal at this point, shipping something with an intel igpu sure but this? just comes across as E-waste tbh

It's a weird product. DG1 is really fast for video encoding/decoding, compared to all the old kepler/pascal gpu sold on the low end, they have a much more recent video engine, so there's that...

Typical Intel lmao.

Hell why not.
If there was ever time to release a subpar GPU it would be now.

What does locking in the GPU into specific configurations accomplish? Is there a blooming black market for crap useless bottom-rung GPUs that we're not aware of?

This is truly a confusing decision on intel's part. All this does is fan the flames of potential F.u.d. when (if) they release an actual competitive GPU (ie that it won't work as well on AMD systems, that intel might hobble it on competing CPUs et cetera)

Not that I believe anything like this is probable, but they're not building up any good will with this kind of lock-in crap.

hummmm... seems short-sided IMHO, bios requirements notwithstanding (surely the biggest chip company in the world could figure out a work around), even if it is intended as an OEM-only product, you would think that they would want to get as many of them out there as possible, if for no other reasons but to be able to ramp production a bit moar & lower their cost per unit.... not that Intel is really worried about little things that, but still.....

chstamosWhat does locking in the GPU into specific configurations accomplish? Is there a blooming black market for crap useless bottom-rung GPUs that we're not aware of?

Limiting the supported configurations makes this thing far easier to support. At the same time, they do want these GPUs out there for wider-scale testing.

If you expect Intel to just release a competitive GPU for midrange or high-end just out of the blue, you will definitely be disappointed. Its a gradual thing. Get some hardware with some configurations out there, which is DG1. They are doing additional cool and complex stuff in HPC but that we consumers care little about. It will take some time and iterations to get the next GPU out, I would suspect still something in low end or maybe midrange. At the same time, they need to build relationships with OEMs, build or fix the drivers and software etc.

RaevenlordIntel has apparently begun shipment of its discrete Iris Xe LP-based DG1 graphics card to OEMs and system integrators

This would be cool and a solid re-entry into the GPU market if it were not for.....

RaevenlordOne interesting tidbit, however, is that system integrators will have to use specific hardware on the systems they build that carry Intel's DG1, as the blue giant has specified that these graphics cards will only work pending specific firmware updates that enable them to function on certain chipset and processor products.

...this absolutely unacceptable deucebaggery!

Intel, I'm holding up both hands, pick a pair of fingers! Let's see if you get the right ones...

Time to start fighting for a sample.
This aint gonna be easy.

This thing sounds more like a iGPU passthrough board when you see it only supports 9th/10th gen intel CPU's and requires an special BIOS to make it work or is it some sort of CF/SLI thing going on between this "Discrete" GPU and the iGPU

AthloniteThis thing sounds more like a iGPU passthrough board when you see it only supports 9th/10th gen intel CPU's and requires an special BIOS to make it work or is it some sort of CF/SLI thing going on between this "Discrete" GPU and the iGPU

9/10 series Intel GPUs are old UHD, not Xe. This makes CF/SLI not too likely.

Historically speaking, I am not surprised how Intel is handling integration, its all about trying to create a monopoly.

Imagine if AMD tried the same bullshit. If anyone remembers the old dragon platform hype, cpu and graphics together were supposed to magically run better... :shadedshu: :banghead:

You can upscale from a Intel iGPU to discrete GPU for what it's worth in practice. It's hit or miss the way it works, but when you mess around with different configurations of settings and resolution you can sometimes upscale from like 1024x768 resolution from discrete GPU to 1080p active resolution on the iGPU as a example. It's very hit or miss and the aspect ratio's and extended desktop/mirror desktop can make it weird in practice til you find a combination that works. It's not the most practical thing in the world for 1080p though. I don't have a 1440p/4K display though right now to see it works outside of that. I think if Intel's custom resolutions worked more like CRU and Nvidia's custom resolution's though it would more serviceable to upscale. I actually feel Intel's iGPU settings for some settings like color are pretty good. To me it objectively looks like a cleaner image if you mirror both and look between both. You can also use reshade in discrete GPU and mirror it to the iGPU and it'll display it with the post processing. So actually I could use the better color of the iGPU with the rendering and post processing of the discrete GPU in practice as well as some a bit of janky working upscale in some instances though not practical at 1080p from what I saw of it. I think the upscale at 1440p/4K might have more practical merit though.

the discrete DG1 only offers entry-level performance due to its 80 EUs (less than even the 96 available through integrated graphics on Intel Tiger Lake CPUs)

lol failboat! And then there's more with the lockouts!

This purely exists so that OEM systems like dell can now default the graphics card to intel, and they charge more for AMD/nvidia

its a money grab for a useless product, since its just a bloody external IGP

MusselsThis purely exists so that OEM systems like dell can now default the graphics card to intel, and they charge more for AMD/nvidia

its a money grab for a useless product, since its just a bloody external IGP

I'm not even sure it's that. OEMs have been happily shipping desktops without dGPUs for decades. They wouldn't want to spend extra on DG1 when it adds nothing to their marketable spec-list.

"Oh, Intel add-in graphics? No thanks this CPU already has Intel graphics".

This has been expected to happen for the last few months:
uk.pcmag.com/graphics-cards/129732/iris-xe-max-5-things-you-need-to-know-about-intels-first-discrete-gpu

Most likely it's going to target machines that are advertised as budget photo/video workstations, and the biggest advantage over the IGP will be dedicated GDDR5 or GDDR6 meaning that the performance in those fields is both significantly faster than an IGP stuck on DDR4, as well as also freeing up that DDR4 for programs to use instead of the IGP.

Crazy stuff , hopefully it'll be just this release but knowing Intel this rabbits hole could end up anywhere, next up performance nonigpu CPU but you're gonna need the Dgpu for some ridiculous reason.

I'm going to go out on a limb in here and say that this is meant to match the overall specifications of the integrated Xe GPUs on Tiger Lake CPUs. Aren't these cards shipping with the same LPDDR4x capability? And have the same(ish) G7's 96EUs? It's a dual-GPU thing in the making. Maybe the special BIOS is for a unified memory scheme, mixed in with that Dynamic Tuning thing I read about somewhere, along with other Intel optimizations/special sauce, like some funky graphics-oriented memory compression or something for good-and-proper dual-GPU frame buffering.

In terms of the raw muscle of it, the benchmarks I see show a 96EU-Tiger nipping at AMD's iGPU gaming heels, and even beating the 4700U/4800U in some circumstances. Plus the architecture's raw IPC is really impressive. So, imagine an SFF system or high-performance mobile device, starting with a 35-60W 4-8 core Tiger Lake (or whatever has Willow Cove running in it), running tandem with a DG1. With proper driver support, I imagine that combination working out to a great, inexpensive gaming machine (probably in the order of $100+ less than a cheap DIY equivalent), which could easily flip into powerful entry-level workstation where iGPU acceleration is possible. Otherwise, it's a nice, quiet, low power system. It's not meant for 4k gaming, but who cares - it's not a locked out system like an Xbox and PS5, and it's freakin' running Windows ahahhaha.

It may seem "short-sighted" but I don't think so, not from a hardware ecosystem integration point of view. I might even say this could reduce the cost of entry for a substantial level of power and performance! I think it would be cool. Considering 90% of SLI and Crossfire issues were due to driver implementation, it might be nice to see a properly executed platform like this. It either didn't exist, broke, or was always broken and could never get fixed. The trick is to do it from the ground-up, make sure you can respect the essential latency parameters of the hardware, and facilitate proper intercommunication between the CPU, GPU, and HDD. You can do that with a higher degree of success if you force the integration and adoption of the technology - I love a free market, but sometimes, your product can get watered down if it continues to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the roll-out/adoption/standardization process. That lowest denominator is always X CPU and memory, Y mobo/chipset/bios, Y SSD speed minimum, you stand a much better chance at successfully advertising the experience you had in mine for people.

I thought SAM being proprietary to 500 series AM4 boards was horrible. This is worse.

It is a foolish decision to lock it to an Intel system, and they made it worst by locking it to certain motherboards. After many years of locking certain technology to their own hardware, it seem Intel will never learn. In the first place, the specs for this card looks really poor in comparison to even last gen low end graphics, i.e. GTX 1650 or even the 1050 Ti. So it is not like a lot of people are going to flock to get one. Locking it out for some hardware enthusiasts to try is going to limit demand for it even more. I think this is going in the way of the Optane, which will never take off in the retail space.

RavenasI thought SAM being proprietary to 500 series AM4 boards was horrible. This is worse.

Who said SAM is limited to 500 series AM4 boards? AMD limited SAM to Ryzen 5000 processor, but they did not deny that you can use it with older Ryzen processor. You should read up, because I think you are misinformed.

watzupkenIt is a foolish decision to lock it to an Intel system, and they made it worst by locking it to certain motherboards. After many years of locking certain technology to their own hardware, it seem Intel will never learn. In the first place, the specs for this card looks really poor in comparison to even last gen low end graphics, i.e. GTX 1650 or even the 1050 Ti. So it is not like a lot of people are going to flock to get one. Locking it out for some hardware enthusiasts to try is going to limit demand for it even more. I think this is going in the way of the Optane, which will never take off in the retail space.


Who said SAM is limited to 500 series AM4 boards? AMD limited SAM to Ryzen 5000 processor, but they did not deny that you can use it with older Ryzen processor. You should read up, because I think you are misinformed.

Thanks that's correct. The board wasn't really the point or the processor, locking a beneficial graphics tech to another tech is trash.

This getting more and more interesting for already redundant product.

The Iris Xe discrete add-in card will be paired with 9th gen (Coffee Lake-S) and 10th gen (Comet Lake-S) Intel Core desktop processors and Intel B460, H410, B365, and H310C chipset-based motherboards and sold as part of pre-built systems

Great, no treatment for Celeron, and I thought Celeron folks need it most. It's better shipping them with F SKU, but it's Intel , I bet their shipping it with K variant also.

Chrispy_Most likely it's going to target machines that are advertised as budget photo/video workstations, and the biggest advantage over the IGP will be dedicated GDDR5 or GDDR6 meaning that the performance in those fields is both significantly faster than an IGP stuck on DDR4, as well as also freeing up that DDR4 for programs to use instead of the IGP.

People who bought budget machine mostly doing basic things, and what task do iGPU aren't capable of? Funny someone wrote it will be good for AI, bla bla..., who in right minds buying a budget machine for complex C ? To be fair, with dedicated VRAM it will benefit in some forms, but not that significant just like GT 710 equipped with GDDR5. And there's another crap, this would work like CF/SLI better than the other 2 companies do for a decades. What?

I wonder how Xe will be in at the low end relative to cost with CMAA and if these also do include RTRT as has been hinted for low resolution RTRT they might could be good relative to cost given CMAA is good on image quality relative to performance and paired with some RTRT hardware it's a nice mixture. If these somehow can seamlessly do mGPU with the iGPU of the Intel CPU's as well they'd do better in turn. In fact perhaps one or the other can handle CMAA and other post process and the other RTRT. They don't look very impressive, but I would hope Intel has some reasonable draws to the designs and can improve them further and come up with something more credible outside the low end market in time.