A 65 watt Deneb @ 3.0 may not equal Nehalem, but it will be a godsend on a 780G board for casual gamers. Both ATI and Nvidia have decent IGP's in every generation. Were it not for Intel CPU's on Intel motherboards, they wouldn't get such a large share of the integrated market.

Not looking promising:

http://en.expreview.com/2008/04/09/eaglelake-a-3-raise-g4345-graphic-clock-to-800mhz/

The Eaglelake developing is still on track, and the release date is unchanged, according to Intel. But the in initial launch the G45/G43 is in A2 status, graphic core running at 667MHz, and G45 do not support VC-1 hardware decoding. 

After A-2, Intel will keep improve the Eaglelake and release A-3 version in the future. In this revision, not only some small bugs will be fixed in G45/G43, but also the clock of the graphic core will be raised to 800MHz, and VC-1 hardware decoding will be enabled for G45.

Though Intel have already sent out their chipset sample, A-3 sample still TBD. Intel will begin mass production of P45/P43, G45/G43 in the week 16, and the graphic driver release for partner will be a week later. The developing of the graphic driver is not satisfying, because in the launch day the driver will only support OpenGL 1.5, OpenGL 2.0 still unsupported. you have to wait till Q3 for a new driver release.

And don't forget that Intel can be almost exclusively blamed for the failing of OpenGL. 

Chicken-and-the-egg, you can't use shaders in casual games if the gamers don't have shaders. And what GPU is in most casual gamers systems?

I've got an Intel integrated graphics thingy in my laptop and when I test some simple DirectX on it, I find it sometimes plots polygons only if all of the corners are off the screen, it's like some clipping check that is reversed and horribly wrong. I thought it was my programming, but having read about this mess it looks possible it's a driver error. Works fine identical program on a desktop.

Forget speed, DirectX, how about some trivial functionality. I can't even get my laptop to drive the ubercommon 16:10 widescreen LCD monitor, the drivers are restricted to the standard 4:3 5:4 resolutions. I boot into GNU/*/Linux and it works automagically. How many people are working on the intel windows video driver? I bet it's many more than in the Xorg division. Pathetic.

Making GPUs is tough, tough work. They are actually more complex and have more transistors than CPUs do, which surprises people who think that "the CPU is the brain of the computer" or some other such nonsense.

So Intel has to eat some humble pie because of their pitiful GPU efforts. Good; it may keep them from getting too arrogant.

USB 1.0 on cocaine?

I have a better idea bunny! would you like to analyse how the AMD 10% cut will save AMD? I look forward to that story chua lee. 

Flush

and the problem is that, this lousy Chips takes almost 40% of the graphics market share!!!
shame on intel they got to make a working integrated chip..
or may be easier to let the professionals do it.. why not take a license from AMD or nvidia to one of their great integrated chips. but hey are you nuts, it's intel baby!! the best chip company in the world!!!

Didn't the i740 win loads of (synthetic) Benchmarks when it first came out? I remember almost buying one since it seemed quite a bit faster than the other cards at the time..well, at least until it was benchmarked using games.

Interesting link, btw:

The i740: Intel's Lead Architect Talks
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3264/the_i740_intels_lead_architect_.php

Certainly funny to read it in retrospect :-)

Then again: What does Intel need to care: Aren't they market leader as far as integrated graphics go?

not sure why everyone is talking about the i740 wasn't that a fully featured add in graphics card and not a chipset bound super wimpy peice of crud. Different categories entirely

P.S. When I say fully featured add in card I mean add in board bound super wimpy peice of crud.

Quote: "G35 is going to be the second Intel GPU to utterly fail".

*Third*, surely? Or has everyone forgotten the i740?

(Broken hardware, check. Endless streams of patched drivers that never properly worked, check. Finally dumped the whole thing in ignominy, check. Yup, it all seems to fit.)

So with all these problems, how on earth will Intel successfully deliver competitive graphics to compete with Nvidia and ATI with Laterbee? A few things you could add to the story is the G915 Vista debacle and yes, the famed i740 joke back in the 1990s.

If you look at Intel's own motherboards they don't even offer a G35-based board, at least in the US! That is telling.

AT adds: Perhaps a visit to the optician is in order.

I like Chalie Demerjian's writing way better than his big brother Charlie. Please fire the one for the other.

Intel has an unbelievably rotten track record with graphics hardware. It's unbelievable, because many small startup graphics companies have done a better job with their hardware than Intel has. Intel simply has no excuse to be producing products that have such lousy drivers. I'm an ISV developing 3-D applications, and the users that have Intel graphics are the ones with the most ongoing problems. It has been going on for years now... Anyone that believes that Intel's going to be a threat to AMD or NVIDIA with Larabee would be well served to take look at Intel's track record with GPUs to date. When I hear the marketing speak saying that Larabee is going to be more popular with developers because it uses x86 instructions, I have to wonder if the Intel people have any clue at all what really matters for graphics. I don't know about anyone else, but I have zero interest in writing x86 assembly language. We've been using DX and OpenGL for decades now, Intel should show us that Larabee will have actual functioning drivers that work correctly for a change. Failing that, Larabee will be doomed to the same fate as all of the prior Intel graphics products. They really must get with the program on this one....