[nicktelford]

I honestly can't see this going anywhere; Intel have no skin in the discrete graphics game, so what do they have to gain from this? They're not really competing with nVIDIA, except perhaps in the emerging AI hardware market?

[HelloNurse]

"Our collaboration with Intel expands the installed base for AMD Radeon GPUs and brings to market a differentiated solution for high-performance graphics".

Intel wants/needs better GPUs than their own ones for their laptop offers, a fairly impressive admission of incompetence, and (as others noted) AMD lacks laptop CPUs and wants to sell more laptop graphics solutions, which are supposed to be their specialty. Good products can be expected, but I suspect Intel might strike a similar deal with Nvidia: whatever thin laptop the public buys, it's going to have a Intel CPU.

[muxr]

Let's not forget Raven Ridge (Ryzen Mobile).. It targets lower power and lower performance, but it's still 3x faster than Intel's current solutions when it comes to graphics.

[mtgx]

Intel has already displaced Nvidia in most laptops because its integrated graphics got "good enough". Some OEMs continue to add low-end Nvidia graphics to Intel-based laptops, even though they have the same or less performance than Intel's graphics, simply because they don't want Intel to think they are their exclusive supplier and can raise prices at will.

What this deal will do is allow Intel to become the de-facto leader in the growing "laptop gaming" market, displacing both Nvidia and AMD from that market. AMD had a chance to dominate that market now with multi-core Ryzen CPUs and its dedicated GPUs, but it seems they've just decided to hand that market over to Intel on a silver platter.

Such a huge mistake from AMD. This is why I would rather AMD would be acquired by someone like Samsung or Broadcom to give AMD the money it needs than do stupid deals like this one with Intel because it's so strapped for cash.

[bitL]

I guess AMD is betting on EPYC; desktop is not progressing much and they are non-existing on laptops either, possibly blocked by Intel on the vendor level, so it's better for them to get a few % of profit instead of none from this segment.

[lettergram]

Exactly my thoughts. I posted in a comment below (also responding to mtgx). Essentially, the laptop chips AMD can produce are still slightly better (well, cheaper) - it's just they can't get into the market for a few years until vendors are up again.

[com2kid]

> Some OEMs continue to add low-end Nvidia graphics to Intel-based laptops, even though they have the same or less performance than Intel's graphics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0MeI0sQfy4

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmar...

Intel's highest end can't meet Nvidia's lowest end embedded, which can be had at a very affordable price.

[paulmd]

> Some OEMs continue to add low-end Nvidia graphics to Intel-based laptops, even though they have the same or less performance than Intel's graphics

The only competitive part from Intel is Iris Pro 580 with the Crystal Well cache, and those parts are capital-E expensive.

[quickben]

Preventing obliteration in the ultra thin laptop segment.

[marcofatica]

Intel would've been wiped out in this segment by AMD. only choice to survive