http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/10/25/amd_a ... processor/
Processors and GPU's merged together eh? Says it'l offer lower voltage consumption, but they don't really go into the details. Well, gives a reason to live another 3 years...
Discuss.
For those of you in doubt about AMD doing somthing with ATI
Moderator: Moderators
-
Lindir The Green
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 04 May 2005, 15:09
I got the impression that it would be like integrated graphics, except for when there's less demand for GPU time and more for CPU time some of the GPU proccessing power could spill over, and vise versa. If not this particular generation then sometime in the future.
And then you can add a dedicated card, and get two graphics systems at once.
Eventually though I think there will be something like this: A low core (2 or 4) high speed proccesor with low bandwith RAM, connected to a high core low speed proccesor with high bandwith RAM. The low core one would be optimised for what the proccessor usually does, and the high core one would be optimised for physics and graphics (which work best like this, because there are many many many seperate calculations that can be done in any order). But if there's a lot of demand for one thing and less of the other, then some of the calculations could be done by the proccesser not optimised for those calculations.
And then you can add a dedicated card, and get two graphics systems at once.
Eventually though I think there will be something like this: A low core (2 or 4) high speed proccesor with low bandwith RAM, connected to a high core low speed proccesor with high bandwith RAM. The low core one would be optimised for what the proccessor usually does, and the high core one would be optimised for physics and graphics (which work best like this, because there are many many many seperate calculations that can be done in any order). But if there's a lot of demand for one thing and less of the other, then some of the calculations could be done by the proccesser not optimised for those calculations.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
I think it's pretty evident that they plan on using multiple processor cores. IOW, one or more dedicated standard processor cores with one or more dedicated graphics processor cores, which could mean lightning fast interdevice communication... or it could mean worse overall performance for both pieces of hardware, that is yet to be seen.mehere101 wrote:I think that this is a bad idea. Basically, graphics processing is far too different from generalized processing. Generalized programming isn't nearly as dependent on fast floating point operations. What AMD should do is get competitive ATI linux drivers out.
There not saying there goona replace descreat graphics entirly though... this is mainly (at first anyway) for home entertainment systems and laptops, and possibly office work. However.... Think about it, if there putting phsics onto graphics cards, whats to stiop them using the graphics on a cpu to handel phyisics why your 3d cards do what they were brought for? This would be a sweet cool way of doing things.
3 years is ages away though so Id not bother worriing what it will be like.
aGorm
3 years is ages away though so Id not bother worriing what it will be like.
aGorm
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
Today's GPUs are actually a little more specialized vector processors, so that's a smart move. E.g. folding@home running on some new ati is 20x (twenty times) faster than the fastest opterons; this could also work as a dedicated physics processor and stuff like that. See also PS3 and its Cell array.
my ATI RADEON 9200 beats all the GFORCE MX series about 2x
i had a GF4 MX it didn't have Pixel Shader at least??? (besides it burned out)
ATI has always been cheaper too
is it so currently too? cuz i will have to buy a pixel shader 3 video in the incoming months, the games keep on demanding higher shaders.
As for the rest is only about companies making money. What would be if they would increaseprocessor size 3, 4, 5 times etc, include all instruction s necessary for computing anything and video boards just becoming just as support for graphics memory, mass produce et voila, a cheap "gamer system". But companies makes more money releasing progressing 100 versions of processors in good time so you at least buy 10 making more money from cheapness like that.
An btw AMD might just as well be an intel branch kept to keep the concurence lawyers at bay. Seems to be a lot of pairs of everything, intel vs amd, GF series vs ATI series ...
i had a GF4 MX it didn't have Pixel Shader at least??? (besides it burned out)
ATI has always been cheaper too
is it so currently too? cuz i will have to buy a pixel shader 3 video in the incoming months, the games keep on demanding higher shaders.
As for the rest is only about companies making money. What would be if they would increaseprocessor size 3, 4, 5 times etc, include all instruction s necessary for computing anything and video boards just becoming just as support for graphics memory, mass produce et voila, a cheap "gamer system". But companies makes more money releasing progressing 100 versions of processors in good time so you at least buy 10 making more money from cheapness like that.
An btw AMD might just as well be an intel branch kept to keep the concurence lawyers at bay. Seems to be a lot of pairs of everything, intel vs amd, GF series vs ATI series ...
The Geforce MX series are crap and not really good to be compared against anything.
Oh yes ATI IS cheaper. So cheap that my first 3D card forgot half of it's textures every now and then... the Rage 3D was bollocks and so were it's drivers and I hardly doubt that's ever going to change after seeing some newer models in action at a friend. Driver issues here, borked shaders there and generally poor opengl support (using latest drivers in dx apps that is).
Oh yes ATI IS cheaper. So cheap that my first 3D card forgot half of it's textures every now and then... the Rage 3D was bollocks and so were it's drivers and I hardly doubt that's ever going to change after seeing some newer models in action at a friend. Driver issues here, borked shaders there and generally poor opengl support (using latest drivers in dx apps that is).
ATI's OpenGL support sucks balls compares to Nvidia. But most games come with a Direct3D option anyways, so I don't really care. They also overclock better. But everything else ATI seems to excell at, including price.
Rage is ooooooold...Theres no point in even making a comparison with them anymore.
Rage is ooooooold...Theres no point in even making a comparison with them anymore.
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
Not on Linux! And since i spend most non-Spring time on Linux...LOrDo wrote:... But most games come with a Direct3D option anyways, ...
Even if i didn't, the mere fact that, when i would be on Linux, it would be much worst, would make me not think ati anymore...
That said, the Radeon 9000 is a good card and was definetly the best on it's time in performance, technology, price and Linux drivers (yes, at the time ati was making the Linux drivers completely open-source), that i know now for sure. And my next gfx card will be mainly focused on Linux, meaning nvidia.
Wow, this is a good idea. AMD already has multiple additional things built into the CPU that intel traditionally had elsewhere on the motherboard, now put the GPU into the CPU and suddenly I bet the manufacturing costs drop drastically. Of course, it would only be good for integrated setups and laptops, but cheaper laptops = good.