Intel Delays Introduction of Chips with Integrated Graphics

Intel Corp. has decided to postpone the release of its central processing units (CPUs) with built-in graphics core to 2010 because of the "customer feedback", according to a slide from a roadmap of the chipmaker published by a web-site. "Intel remains committed to delivering stable, high quality, industry leading platforms on a predictable cadence. Based on 2008 client platform learnings and customer feedback, we have realigned our features and schedules for 2009 mainstream Nehalem chips," a statement published on a slide that resembles a slide from Intel's roadmap, reads. The slide was revealed by HKEPC web-site.

Originally planned to be released in 2009, code-named Auburndale processor for mobile computers and Havendale chip for desktop PCs (both based on Nehalem micro-architecture) are now scheduled to be launched in early 2010, based on the information from the slide. The delay is hardly critical for Intel in terms of revenue, but since those chips greatly simplify the company's production process, it is strange that Intel decided to delay such products.

View: The full story @ Xbit-Labs

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Samsung set to buy SanDisk?

Next Story

Next "Patch Tuesday" to include 4 Critical Patches

9 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Mid-2009, if I remember correctly. It's called the Capella platform I think.

Too bad about this news... I was looking forward to seeing what it could do for laptops with integrated graphics.

Actually, the market for integrated graphics as a whole is largely the corporate/enterprise desktop market, which has seen a large shift to virtual desktops and thin clients, while pricing for discrete graphics has tumbled. Throw in increased demand for capabilities beyond what integrated graphics has historically been capable of, and what is the real point of rushing it to market?.

The only "feedback" they've ever received regarding their video chipsets is about how HORRIBLE they are.

Seriously, "Intel Graphics" is a synonym for CRAP.

Their i810 sure sucked, especially in Linux.

Otherwise,
For Joe Blow, they work. I actually prefer them to Nvidia on my everyday desktop. Not a gamer either though. Just DESPISE updating/installing Nvidia CRAP!!

(Xenomorph said @ #1)
The only "feedback" they've ever received regarding their video chipsets is about how HORRIBLE they are.

Seriously, "Intel Graphics" is a synonym for CRAP.


It's not really like all that much power is required for running internet and word processing applications. So beyond performance, are there actual issues with these? From what I've seen they just seem to...work.