What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
24 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12If it's anything like "Intel EXTREME Graphics" then I'd say they'd best team up with Nvidia before ATI/AMD ***** all over them.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33678
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060724-7333.html
isnt amd doing the same thing...This all was planned long ago - Evoguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3While it's possible (even probable) intel could combine CPU/GPU for the low-level value market, all this talk of integrating CPU/GPU is never going to affect the higher end of the value market, or the enthusiast market.
GPUs are completely memory bandwidth bound, and therefore use super fast surfacemount RAMs. It's inherantly incompatible with consumer-friendly pluggable DIMM technology. The new crop of GPUs are using DDR4 while the rest of the system is using DDR2, I think this 2 memory generation gap is going to exist for a long time. There will always be a market for high-end add-in cards. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ray, true indeed but they don't have to be so disjointed as they are now. For example, in current architectures a GPU has to receive and send data via a PCI Express link and in the case of AMD it that link has to bridge to Hypertransport on the processor with Intel, it's even worse where there's a serial to parallel conversion from PCIe to Intel's QDR front side bus. Imagine if those serial connections were all native... as in a GPU could plug direct into the HT link for AMD and into a native serial link on an Intel CPU. That's what I meant by tighter coupling. Bridging connections ad latency and bottlenecks plain and simple.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Full integration, maybe not but a tigher coupling of the CPU and GPU could very well make a lot of sense. Just think what AMD/ATI can do over a HyperTransport link. Now if Intel FINALLY makes the jump to a serial interface on a CPU, a direct connect could be interesting and plausible.
- Kahnza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2One idea I had was to incorporate a GPU and vram sockets onto the mobo. Or even do something like that right on the addon card. It would possibly cut down on upgrade costs. And offer greater customizability.
- HonoredMule, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There's a strong future in specialized cores...
Separating function into different chips boosts power consumption/heat generation and overall system complexity. Merely taking current GPUs to 65 nm and/or using SOI would seriously cut down on power consumption/heat. It would also save a few dollars per graphics card if the GPU were a core with direct access to main memory at performance comparable to current dedicated-memory graphics cards. System memory would be more flexible, and CPU/PPU/etcPU cores would enjoy that boost in memory performance as well. What's more, you don't necessarily have to lose your flexibility of consumer choices, as cores don't necessarily have to be on the same chip/socket, and now you can upgrade/increase ram for your GPU, which dedicated graphics cards have almost never let us do.
Separation of specialized functions was a necessary step to make computer engineering a manageable feat, and that's no less true today. But we no longer have to suffer the drawbacks of system segmentation as much as we did when it first happened. Now we can have logical separation without so much physical separation and the drawbacks inherent in that. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2why bother, a good idea like this is probably already patented [/sarcasm]
- falcon1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Didn't we originally seperate them? Seems like we are headed the wrong direction with this. I think there is more a future in specialized chips, such as physics processors. I can't see any company putting the two back together.
Also, jarland, I believe ATI is owned by AMD now, so I dont think Intel will be working hand in hand with them any time soon. - daines88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Am I the only one that doesn't like this? If this happens now you're going to have to upgrade your processor to upgrade you graphics chip. As of now you just swap out a card. It's as if we're heading to the disposable computer.
- LordofShadows, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would think physics will be the first gaming related process delegated to this coprocessor. Not to mention all the general purpose applications that will benefit from it like all those people folding protein sequences to help understand things like Alzheimers and Parkinsons disease.
- sishgupta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah honestly i was thinking the same way. But im guessing its like doing dual core except one of the cores is a graphics one.
This might be cool because it would mean faster data rates? I dont know about this topic too much, but i can imagine that there would be less lag and more throughput for the graphics. - Kahnza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Intel Developers Forum
- HonoredMule, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1CPU/GPU integration (as distinct cores on a single chip) for Intel desktop processors IS a plausible implication of this press release. So is advancement of embedded systems such as PDAs, smart phones, and other handheld devices. It's highly unlikely that both predictions are true.
- ray901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Mojo,
Good points, I agree with you. I guess I read this as them integrating the chips in a single die, much like the quad paradigms that are the rage at the moment.
I very much like the idea of being able to replace/augment (read overclock) my current GPUs without interfering with my CPU. I also wonder how (if this becomes the norm) it will effect technologies such as SLI. I don't think that this would even have been contemplated had the GPU not been implemented as a non-integrated solution. - ray901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0With a tight coupling the only way you can change/upgrade one of them is to replace both. I would have thought that it would be preferable to have a loose coupling between CPU and GPU. The tighter the coupling the more dependencies and the more that changes to one affect the other. I thought that this basic tenant of both hardware and software design.
- pairanoyd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3IDF?? WTF???
What is Intel doing with the Israeli Defense Force??
That's scary man, scary.. I think I'll stick with AMD.. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2is it matter or mass?
- wingedflurry, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2+digg for Bill Nye reference!
- ratnadeepsinh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Good one.
- Kizzle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Inertia is a property of matter.
- coldphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1that it is edward, that it is
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1if intel is cereal interoperability is doomed!
I love nvidia, I love my 3d acceleration in linux. this terrifys me. it could become so fragmented that it may be impossible to write a portable game. - coldphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Yeah I mean...intel/nvidia vs. amd/ati only makes sense, I know the little guys are tryin but welcome to the harsh reality of life.
But either way, I think it's smarter to keep the two chips separate...simply better choice for the end user that way.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is