|
Vol
13, Issue 13
|
 |
October
6, 1999
|
Intel Commoditizes 3D Graphics
Most PC Users Have No Need for Speedy 3D; Integrated Strategy
Prevails
With the introduction of the 810E chip set (see MPR 10/6/99,
p. 30), Intel has pushed integrated graphics from the low end
to the mainstream of its product line, leaving discrete 3D accelerators
for only the most performance-conscious users. By next spring,
the majority of new PCs are likely to be using a chip set with
integrated 3D graphics--most with Intel's name on them. This
represents a huge change from early this year, when nearly all
PCs contained a discrete 3D-graphics chip.
While integration has been a powerful force in PC design
for years, this transition is unusual: in many cases, PC users
will see a decrease in performance when comparing the new
integrated parts with older designs. The 3D core built into
Intel's 810 and 810E is competitive with the least expensive
discrete 3D chips available today but behind the chips typically
used in midrange PCs. The success of Intel's integrated devices
indicates how few OEMs and PC buyers care about 3D performance.
Intel has helped foster this attitude in the consumer market
with the creation of the Celeron brand. Intel believes that
anyone buying a low-end PC cares only about megahertz, not
actual performance. The success of the Celeron processor,
with its slow front-side bus and lack of SSE, substantiates
this belief. Buyers in this segment don't seem to care that
the 810 chip set has limited 3D performance. They just like
the big megahertz number on the CPU.
More sophisticated consumers are looking for good deals
on Pentium III systems, which can be found for less than $1,000.
Many of these less expensive Pentium III products will be
switching to the 810E in the near future. This change will
drive some consumers--particularly gamers--to move up to an
820 system that will probably come with a more powerful, and
more expensive, Intel processor.
Most PCs are still bought by businesses, large and small,
and few business buyers are interested in 3D performance.
There are still no mainstream business applications that have
3D components, and nothing seems likely to appear in the near
future. Thus, most business buyers are happy with "checkbox"
3D--as long as the PC has a 3D accelerator, they're happy.
For these businesses, the 810 and 810E fit the bill, and carry
the Intel brand to boot.
Some business PC buyers have a bit more foresight. Seeking
a four-year lifetime for their PCs, they don't want to ignore
an area such as 3D performance that could become critical
during that period. In addition, the incremental cost of a
more powerful system is a small fraction of the total cost
of ownership (TCO) during that system's life. These buyers
will be well served by seeking out 820-based systems with
moderately priced but powerful 3D accelerators available from
a variety of chip makers.
Intel's integration strategy leaves these 3D chip makers
to compete in a shrinking market for discrete graphics accelerators.
Naturally, the biggest impact has been on market leaders ATI
and S3, which have been the vendors of choice for low-cost
and midrange 3D chips. These are the very sockets being eliminated
by the 810 and 810E. As a result, Intel is likely to become
the leading vendor of 3D-graphics accelerators within the
next few months.
Intel's flank attack exposes a key fallacy of the 3D market:
that performance is the most important factor. Sure, there
are a bunch of gamers and a few professional users who care,
but without mainstream 3D applications, most PC makers aren't
putting a priority on 3D performance. When several vendors
offer chips with similar features, OEMs will naturally choose
ones with the best performance in their price class. But by
integrating 3D into the chip set, Intel has sidestepped this
comparison and reduced system cost.
Over time, emerging applications will increase mainstream
interest in 3D performance. (Indeed, Intel itself is promoting
some of these applications, hoping to boost sales of its high-end
CPUs.) Intel must be careful that its brand name does not
become associated with inadequate 3D performance. It's quite
possible, however, that emerging applications will be satisfied
by whatever level of commodity 3D Intel can deliver at the
time, making moot any competitive performance issues.
Other 3D vendors must figure out how to compete in this
new world. Creating their own integrated chip sets, as Nvidia
has done (see MPR 10/6/99, p. 5) and S3 is doing, is the obvious
approach, but these vendors will find it difficult to displace
the 810 family, given Intel's entrenched position in the chip-set
market. The high-end 3D market remains viable and active,
but Intel's integration strategy has quickly halved the available
market for third-party 3D chips.
If this trend continues, the discrete 3D chip will go the
way of the math coprocessor. A high-end niche will remain
for quite some time, but to be successful, 3D chip makers
must counter Intel's inevitable integration efforts.
Editorial by Linley Gwennap
Linley@mdr.cahners.com
|