Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Graphics Integration into CPU

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    208

    Default 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. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,100

    Default

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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,458

    Default

    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 at 11:57 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,625

    Default

    @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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    75

    Default

    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 at 08:25 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    208

    Default

    Quote 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 at 08:39 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    208

    Default

    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 at 09:48 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote 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 *****? )

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    75

    Default

    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •