Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Graphics Integration into CPU

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Graphics Integration into CPU

    Maybe not right forum but wow, have you seen this. Intel integrates HD video into main processor. Results seem good. The conclusion would seem to be depressing for AMD.

    I've used AMD on my last four builds and have been fairly happy with price and performance. Any moves by AMD along the same line regarding integration? Any negatives to the combination not being reported?

  • #2
    I remember reading that they have been working on something similar. Fusion or some such.

    Comment


    • #3
      Yeah, we looked at making a two-die solution (eg CPU plus 785 IGP) on the same substrate but there didn't seem to be enough benefits to force a socket change at this point. We're going straight to a one-die solution :

      http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...rocessors.html

      Kinda like an Athlon X4 plus one of the "Redwood" HD5xxx mobile GPUs we just announced, but on the same die.

      It's probably worth reading the comments on the review that forum1793 linked.
      Last edited by bridgman; 01-07-2010, 11:57 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        @bridgman

        Adding 2 dices is no new solution. amd could have done that long ago, but no they needed to wait for a 1 chip solution. When you look at the history of the phenom quads, do you think that was the right way? All you do is losing time against intel. Not even the speed was higher in most of the benchmarks against the intel double dual cores. The integration of the igp of latest intel cpus was done not because it was easier/cheaper than produceing 2 chips it was done to eliminate other onboard solutions. All other solutions must be more expensive as they require dedicated gfx chips with extra memory as shared memory solutions are more or less impossible. For amd this is not that critial as they already gained lots of market share for their own chipsets, there is just for reducing the price. The price is the one and only way where amd can compete, definitely not with speed for desktop cpus. For server systems with lots of cpus the world seems to look a bit more friendly for amd but on desktop amd is about 1 year or more behind intel. That all began because the huge delay of the first amd quad cores. intel q6600 was out when amd just had an idea but no product.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Kano View Post
          @bridgman

          Adding 2 dices is no new solution. amd could have done that long ago, but no they needed to wait for a 1 chip solution. When you look at the history of the phenom quads, do you think that was the right way? All you do is losing time against intel. Not even the speed was higher in most of the benchmarks against the intel double dual cores. The integration of the igp of latest intel cpus was done not because it was easier/cheaper than produceing 2 chips it was done to eliminate other onboard solutions. All other solutions must be more expensive as they require dedicated gfx chips with extra memory as shared memory solutions are more or less impossible. For amd this is not that critial as they already gained lots of market share for their own chipsets, there is just for reducing the price. The price is the one and only way where amd can compete, definitely not with speed for desktop cpus. For server systems with lots of cpus the world seems to look a bit more friendly for amd but on desktop amd is about 1 year or more behind intel. That all began because the huge delay of the first amd quad cores. intel q6600 was out when amd just had an idea but no product.

          Well neither intel nor AMD can be given originality points on integrating graphics on x86. Cyrix did it over a decade ago with the MediaGX which had graphics, sound, pci and mem controller.

          Comment


          • #6
            Despite my dislike of AMD gpu's and their linux support for them, I hope AMD catches intel with a good solution in Fusion. No one wants to be dependent on one company. For system-on-a-chip solutions that will be heavily used in netbook and hand-held devices and have good support in linux will be a major milestone for linux adoption.
            Last edited by barbarbaron; 01-08-2010, 08:25 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bridgman View Post
              It's probably worth reading the comments on the review that forum1793 linked.
              Excellent point. I did not notice those. I just assumed Tom's would do a fair comparison. Starts to look a little biased if they deliberately picked a slower chip. I have't kept up with AMDs PCU speeds over last year and don't know yet either way.

              I thought there might be some type of thermal problem with integrating a decent gpu with the cpu. Are both slowed down to compensate or is there better thermal management or just more efficient?

              Edit: what about overclocking? While I don't often think about it, it would be hard with the integration wouldn't it? Seems like there would be timing issues.
              Last edited by forum1793; 01-08-2010, 08:39 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Not sure how good/fair 3DMark Vantage 1.0.2 CPU is but you can see a comparison.

                Reviewing the article, they're saying the new i3 and i5 are dual core and have integrated graphics. So they compared against what they said (at the time) was the fastest AMD dual core. Looking at the chart above in the link, the 550 is still very near to AMD's fastest dual core.

                Would it be more fair to compare AMD's best quad to intel's souped up dual core? They do say the intel dual core had higher voltage but we also have to consider that used for the gpu. Maybe could compare on a cost point? But that fluctuates widely with time.

                Edit: Looking at costs between 550 and i5 shows 1:2 ratio. That does add some perspective.

                AMD, you're just going to have to get closer. That cash infusion from intel from the lawsuit should help.
                Last edited by forum1793; 01-08-2010, 09:48 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by barbarbaron View Post
                  Despite my dislike of AMD gpu's and their linux support for them, I hope AMD catches intel with a good solution in Fusion. No one wants to be dependent on one company. For system-on-a-chip solutions that will be heavily used in netbook and hand-held devices and have good support in linux will be a major milestone for linux adoption.
                  I'll vote for ARM Cortex-A9 + DSP . But the comment section on http://www.osnews.com/story/22704/In..._ARM_Cortex-A9 let me down (ARM avaibility, and their SoC cost. Heck)

                  IMHO:
                  Intel CPU + GPU = More processing horse power with adequate graphic acceleration
                  AMD Fusion = Less processing power with nicer graphic acceleration

                  @Forum 1793:
                  Tomshardware IS popular with their BIASED comparison (hm.. maybe they've been bought by *****? )

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'll vote for ARM Cortex-A9 + DSP
                    Yep The video convinced me that if gpu acceleration be integrated into ARM chips it can match intel atom performance-wise. Which is good news

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      When comparing CPUs, you need to compare chips at similar price points. If the 550 costs for example 170$ and it's compared against a 85$ chip, it would do well to win in benchmarks.

                      The issue is that you can buy quad-cores for the price of the new dual-core 550/551 chips, and these quad-cores are better in all but power consumption. These chips are simply not attractive at this price point.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        So what's the best value now for a linux machine, all things considered? Gotta be Athlon II X4 620 (Propus 4c), runs at 95w around $100.
                        The 9150e also quad but runs at 65w and $10 less but 20-25% slower.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by barbarbaron View Post
                          Yep The video convinced me that if gpu acceleration be integrated into ARM chips it can match intel atom performance-wise. Which is good news
                          There arent many cpu's actually that cant outperform Atom. Most newer arm products can easily pretty much across the board. At lest 3 SoC PPC products can on overall performance. Most SoC MIPS products can on performance/watt. There is at least one SH SoC that comes damn close.

                          Atom is nothing special. The only benefit that it has is Intel's fabrication expertise. Besides that it really is a massively narrow -in order- architecture clocked very high relative to other chips targeted at the same form factor. Besides it's relatively high clock it really isnt anything to write home about.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Even if atom stays faster than ARM considering the x86 advantage, I think the main concern must be price at this point. ARM + linux = less for hardware + less for software.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by barbarbaron View Post
                              Despite my dislike of AMD gpu's and their linux support for them,
                              you are only in the wrong time... really..

                              just wait a little the circle will rotate in the opposite direction.

                              most of your arguments against the amd gpu's will Dissolve in the next half year.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X