Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Gen12 Graphics Bring EU Fusion - EUs Fused In Pairs

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

  • Intel Gen12 Graphics Bring EU Fusion - EUs Fused In Pairs

    Phoronix: Intel Gen12 Graphics Bring EU Fusion - EUs Fused In Pairs

    While we remain eager to find out more about (and benchmark) Intel Gen12 graphics in Tiger Lake and Xe discrete graphics with this generation bringing the biggest changes to the ISA since i965, Linux patches and bug reports do continue offering new tid-bits of information on Gen12...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...en12-EU-Fusion

  • #2
    I'm half expecting to be disappointed with whatever they do (talking about the next reveal). Maybe it will be the first one that doesn't? Someday it won't.
    Last edited by ix900; 07-16-2020, 07:26 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ix900 View Post
      I'm half expecting to be disappointed with whatever they do (talking about the next reveal). Maybe it will be the first one that doesn't? Someday it won't.
      Be like me, always expect the worst.

      And then be disappointed anyway because the reality is even worse than expected.

      Comment


      • #4
        Intel Gen12 Graphics Bring EU Fusion
        Had no idea that Intel sponsored the Joint European Torus

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by bachchain View Post

          Had no idea that Intel sponsored the Joint European Torus
          they have a lot of experience in wasting power

          Comment


          • #6
            I wonder why no one builds a CPU having a minimalistic IGP? I don't need to waste 1/3 - 1/2 of the die size because my GPU might crap ou t some day and I won't have another GPU readily available. Just build the smallest IGP that can run an office suite and a web browser decently and you've covered everyone but gamers. "Casual" gamers (whatever that is), because the gamers I know will want a discrete anyway.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bug77 View Post
              I wonder why no one builds a CPU having a minimalistic IGP? I don't need to waste 1/3 - 1/2 of the die size because my GPU might crap ou t some day and I won't have another GPU readily available. Just build the smallest IGP that can run an office suite and a web browser decently and you've covered everyone but gamers. "Casual" gamers (whatever that is), because the gamers I know will want a discrete anyway.
              That's what they have :-) (joking)

              And quite effective. I have a NUC with BYT (atom) single core at 1.5GHz. It runs KDE (requires opengl) and Kodi (opengl an vaapi for decoding). It plays nicely 1080p and I never have to shut it down because it consume << 5W. No way this would work without IGP.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ferry View Post

                That's what they have :-) (joking)

                And quite effective. I have a NUC with BYT (atom) single core at 1.5GHz. It runs KDE (requires opengl) and Kodi (opengl an vaapi for decoding). It plays nicely 1080p and I never have to shut it down because it consume << 5W. No way this would work without IGP.
                But why can't they do that for an i5 or better?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bug77 View Post

                  But why can't they do that for an i5 or better?
                  I always thought there were some bean counters behind that seemingly ass-backwards decision.
                  Someone decided to put it there because in i5/i7 they could add more price so they could use that to pay for other devices where they add graphics at "a loss", or some other shenanigan like that, since at the end of the day all Intel iGPUs are the same thing, whose development cost must be spread around on multiple products.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                    I always thought there were some bean counters behind that seemingly ass-backwards decision.
                    Someone decided to put it there because in i5/i7 they could add more price so they could use that to pay for other devices where they add graphics at "a loss", or some other shenanigan like that, since at the end of the day all Intel iGPUs are the same thing, whose development cost must be spread around on multiple products.
                    What decision is behind people wanting smaller iGPUs? It's the same, which is saving cost.

                    There's no benefit for them making a smaller iGPU for higher end CPUs, because they base all dies on the highest configuration anyway. The lower end configurations are just cut down versions of the highest config, which coincidentally(or perhaps not so coincidentally) contains the largest iGPU.

                    It'll actually cost MORE making an i7 chip with a smaller iGPU because that's an entirely different configuration. Of course they could go disable part of the iGPU but why would you do that?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X