Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Announces CPU With HBM2 Memory & AMD Graphics

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

  • b15hop
    replied
    Originally posted by vito View Post
    Hopefully this makes Intel abandon their OpenCL implementation (i.e. Beigenet) in favor or something that works on Radeon (and Intel) GPUs. Perhaps it is time for Mesa Clover to be resurrected?

    Lack of decent and easily accessible OpenCL implementation on Radeon cards is the only reason why we still use Nvidia for number crunching at work. Getting ROCm to work on up to date distros is PITA.

    My hope is that this changes in the near future - hopefully once the kernel 4.15 is out, ROCm will work in userspace so it is easy to install on up to date distros like Fedora. Until then, the test Vega cards we got as a proof of concept are collecting dust in the bin.

    What do you use instead of OpenCL then?

    Leave a comment:


  • SystemCrasher
    replied
    Hell has frozen over for one more time. Oh, wait, there was an early warning about upcoming climate change this time.

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by Mabhatter View Post

    AMD doesn’t own Fab anymore so price isn’t as drastic a problem if they get a consistent royalty paycheck. And 3-7 years from one design and a few speed bumps is easy money.
    I'm really not certain it's that simple. Whether AMD owns the fab tech or GF owns it doesn't matter really. If problems with yield happen, as they have, it costs -much- more this way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shinobi
    replied
    Originally posted by arunbupathy View Post
    Whaaaat!!!!???? An AMD Radeon GPU on an Intel CPU?! But surely, I'am dreaming, right? I can't believe it is true.

    While it looks like it could bring AMD more visibility in the market, this also sounds so much confusing because they already have their own high performance CPUs which they could pair the Radeons with.

    But anything that is good for AMD is welcome by me! We need competition. I really hope that this is the fighting chance that AMD deserves. (Although, it was the same Intel who had fucked them over in the past.)

    I hope Lisa Su was right in saying that AMD are really back and that they are just getting started. I guess Raja Koduri too deserves praise here for the hard work RTG has put in to make this possible.

    Woohoo!! Great times to be living in as a PC enthusiast!
    Looks like he has left RTG!

    Leave a comment:


  • GruenSein
    replied
    I don't think, these chips will cannibalize Risen Mobile sales. As suggested before, the target market for these chips is vastly different. There are two clear indicators for this at the moment. First of all, manufacturing three chips and putting them on some kind of interconnect - no matter how cheap it might be - will always be a lot more expensive than an APU SoC like Ryzen Mobile. The only reason to go the multi-chip route is when the chips would otherwise reach ridiculously huge die sizes as is the case with EPYC where yields suffer greatly. Small mobile chips don't fall into this category. Also, HBM2 is not cheap. So, it is safe to assume that this Intel-AMD-Frankenstein will be an expensive product.
    The second and somewhat more obvious reason is that we know the CU count of both products. Ryzen Mobile will feature 8 or 10 CUs. The newly announced Intel-AMD-thingies are apparently going to include 24 CUs. That is another beast entirely.
    As it seems, Ryzen Mobile will be quite competitive in both CPU and GPU department. The only real worry is that system manufacturers will keep AMD's chips in low end systems with sub-par build quality and single channel memory.
    From my point of view, AMD just managed to tap into an additional piece of the market which earns them some extra money and also increases their relevance in developer mindsets. At the same time, it leaves Nvidia out in the cold for high end mobile systems that would otherwise have included an Intel CPU and some Nvidia mobile GPU. Seems like a good move to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • MartinN
    replied
    Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post
    People seem to be oblivious of the Toshiba memory consortium purchase. SK Hynix and Apple [especially Apple] invested in getting that business for $18.1 Billion. The licensing between members for their portfolio and availability expansion of HBM2 seems rather timely concerning Apple's all-in with Vega and HBM2.

    More than anything, this is Intel licensing IP from AMD to keep Apple from dumping them completely, outside of LTE modem for wireless needs. This agreement most likely doesn't even exist w/o Zen/Vega/HBM2 and Apple iMac Pro and future Mac Pro having options other than Intel.

    Ultimately, with Thunderbolt opening up Apple can dump Intel all-together in 2018 and go Zen+/Zen2 Vega/Navi with their own custom boards adding TBolt 3 and never looking back.

    AMD wins either way. SK Hynix needs Apple's business, AMD needs Apple's business, Intel's leveraged the hell out of Apple's business for 10 years. Samsung just lost out to LG for Apple OLED in 2018 and beyond: a reason the CEO of Samsung retired and conceded the future more dim than their latest quarter benefiting from Apple's iPhone X contract and much more. Samsung jacked up all the prices on HBM2 as SK Hynix had not the resources to provide large quantities.

    AMD suffered, gaming suffered and only Miners got the bits available, at inflated prices.

    After the Toshiba deal, within 45 days we have all this news, AMD's GPGPU lines are MSRP again, availability for all is common and everyone is peeing themselves over this Intel announcement?

    The big deal is how AMD, SK Hynix, TSMC, Apple and anyone not Intel and Samsung fair, never mind Nvidia still a one trick pony no one cares about beyond their demoed AI smart systems and Gaming.

    Intel isn't worried about Nvidia taking them on in CPU market. They are worried Apple's ready for a divorce and AMD enjoys the double dating.
    Hope I can no longer boil an egg on AMD's CPUs . Glad to see some hardcore engineering leadership at AMD's helm.
    Last edited by MartinN; 07 November 2017, 03:43 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • existensil
    replied
    Originally posted by Mabhatter View Post

    It’s not really a threat to AMD directly. As much as we lov the scrappy underdogs, AMD will never get past the 30% range in CPUs. They never broke that long before. First, there’s whole markets that just won’t buy AMD CPUs but love ATI graphics. Like Apple, and pretty much any Enterprise level PC shopper and IT department. Fab is getting pretty scarce right now. Only a few places offer the highest end Fab, and between Consoles (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) (a lot if IBM Fab there) and Mobile devices (Apple & Samsung) the available Fab is critically full.

    If AMD is “renting” the design to Intel, and Intel is facing on last-gen CPU processes then its a double win for AMD to get paid and not have to deal with manufacturing and QA.
    There are so many things wrong here.

    First, in 1999 and 2000 AMD crossed the 50% mark on CPU sales volumes a couple times. They never had anywhere near Intel's revenue, but they can and have supplied the majority of the world's processors before. Plus, companies aren't static entities. Past performance is not indicative of the future. If that were true their'd be IBMs on all of our desks and Apple would have gone out of business.

    Enterprise shoppers have bought plenty of non-Intel systems before and if AMD is able to get design wins and be offered in competitive products through major manufacturers, enterprise will assuredly come. This is especially true in data centers, where performance per watt is the only thing that matters. EPYC clearly has an advantage here in certain workloads so it will certainly capture a significant chunk of the market. That wasn't true prior to EPYC where aging Opterons were outperformed per watt at basically 100% of things.

    AMD can't simply move Radeon designs to Intel fabs. That's not how this is going to work. The design and tooling changes would be huge, and would require Intel to reveal more about their fab tech than they are probably willing to do. AMD will manufacture the Radeon dies (likely through their partnership with GlobalFoundaries, but maybe some with TSMC or Samsung). Intel will use the EMIB tech to interconnect them. The whole wow factor of this tech is its ability to act as a low cost interconnect between "heterogeneous silicon" (ie: manufactured on different processes and technologies) which is exactly what is going on here. AMD will have to deal with manufacturing and QA just as they do now with their other products. They will get to avoid headaches related to chip packaging and ironing out this new interconnect stuff. Hopefully they are getting some access to EMIB in exchange, but this otherwise looks a lot like AMDs other custom silicon deals with Microsoft and Sony, and may have even better IP terms for AMD than those deals as Intel likely needed them more than they needed Intel.
    Last edited by existensil; 08 November 2017, 05:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • gamerk2
    replied
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
    Why didn't Intel just put some resources on beefing up their own GPU?

    Intel haven't done shit with their GPU since the days of Haswell.
    Four generation later and its still the same GPU with just minor tweaks.
    NVIDIA.

    NVIDIA is running away in a lot of markets Intel is desperately trying to get into. In addition, Intel really doesn't have a power-efficient enough GPU to make Intel a major player in the mobile market. AMD helps in both cases, as their GPU is better suited for high performance markets, while having a superior power profile to Intels.

    That being said, there's a part of me wondering if this is a precursor for Intel to purchase outright AMD's GPU division.

    Leave a comment:


  • xxmitsu
    replied
    Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
    Still, would be nice to see what actual Vega chip is in this thing. Is it the Vega 10 used in the Vega 64, 56 and Radeon Pro WX 9100? Is that also the same chip in the iMac Pro or is this the same chip as the one in the iMac Pro? So many questions, so few answers.
    This doesn't seem to be Vega, but Polaris with HBM2 memory controller.. judging by: https://www.techpowerup.com/img/1tJbfBoky8ckWBLz.jpg Device name: gfx804

    I guess AMD want to keep the latest generation for themselves for now. Or perhaps the actual implementation started before Vega chips were available.

    Leave a comment:


  • chithanh
    replied
    Originally posted by speculatrix View Post
    they could have fitted an Intel + nVidia combination.
    You mean like Microsoft did in the original Xbox? We all know how that turned out. Additionally, given the emphasis on async compute that seems inherent in the PS4 APU, none of the NVidia graphics solutions at that time was suitable.
    Originally posted by Adarion View Post
    I guess AMD will take care of it. I guess it won't be too different from what they have now, so not much work - "just" the connections and intel's power management / distribution thing.
    The bolded part is where I see the crux of the matter. Will Intel be ok with this being released in the open? When it comes to Intel graphics, part of the power management code moved from FOSS drivers to proprietary firmware this generation.

    Aargh, I knew it:
    Originally posted by PCWorld
    One interesting wrinkle: Intel will be responsible for supplying the drivers for the Radeon GPU, though company engineers won’t write the original code. An Intel representative said they’re working closely with AMD’s Radeon business to supply “day one” drivers for new games, when those drivers become available.
    https://www.pcworld.com/article/3235...s.html?cid=569 via https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gamin...ore_chip_will/
    Michael could you try to ask your contacts at Intel/AMD about the Linux situation?
    Last edited by chithanh; 07 November 2017, 08:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X