What is Digg?53 Comments
- 0xbaadf00d, on 07/31/2008, -1/+49It's not the size of the die, it's the motion of the transistors.
- dejanigma, on 07/30/2008, -6/+38Penis envy as applied to vapor deposition and photolithography resolutions....
- Darkhacker, on 07/31/2008, -0/+18Yeah, in the same way that minivans will overtake the pickup truck market. /sarcasm
It's very interesting to see research involved in being able to utilize the GPU for non-graphical calculations but to say it will overtake the CPU doesn't make any sense. There are still things you absolutely need a CPU for and instructions that can't be performed on a GPU.
At best, you might see the CPU become more specialized where you have multiple cores where the hardware is designed to perform certain instructions faster than a generic CPU could on its own (the same idea behind GPUs), but that is NOT the same as saying that a GPU would overtake a CPU. That statement just doesn't make any sense. - Gudeldar, on 07/31/2008, -3/+19Obviously shrinking GPUs is different than shrinking CPUs or AMD would be using this 40nm process on its CPUs (ATI is owned by AMD)
- Schmich, on 07/31/2008, -2/+15and so the GPU would be renamed CPU and the CPU will therefore still be there :x
- Murdats, on 07/31/2008, -0/+7so what you mean is that we will start using the GPU architecture as our CPU architecture and call them CPU's
just sounds like yet another new version of CPU design, not the death of CPU's - wTheOnew, on 07/31/2008, -0/+6umm....what?
- caseycoold, on 07/31/2008, -3/+9Intel let's their janitors on computers? O.o
- ilgaz, on 07/31/2008, -0/+4Even Apple/IBM/Motorola couldn't mess with x86 CPU.
Unless a miracle happens, that thing stays. - FUR10N, on 07/31/2008, -3/+7its only 5 nanometers
/sarcasm - owenkun, on 07/31/2008, -2/+6Since when does Intel compete (compete directly, at least, you can't honestly say that Intel's Integrated Graphics Adapters are on the same level as a GeForce 8xxx series) with nVidia?
I don't see Intel losing its lead against AMD any time soon short of a real blunder. If anything, their processors are too good! I'm still enjoying my Core2Duo. - Dubst3r, on 07/31/2008, -5/+8ATI will introduce 40nm before NVIDIA. They should have looked to the manufacture who would introduce the earliest.
- Darkhacker, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3@MarkusX
I'd believe your follow up explanation if it weren't for this...
"I bet in 20 years, when every computer is based on GPUs only, there are some people that run the PC on a CPU just out of nostalgia."
A computer "based on GPUs only" just isn't impossible. A GPU is just that, a Graphics Processing Unit. It just so happens that the same chip can be utilized for certain mathematical calculations and perform them faster than a CPU could, but the CPU is (as the name suggests) centralized and only it can perform tasks related to managing the system, such as the hardware (IRQs, APIC, etc) and the operating system. The key advantage you'll see in research regarding GPGPU (General Purpose GPUs) is in tasks that require a high level of parallelism. Also keep in mind that a GPU is hardwired for certain algorithms and using a different algorithm on that hardware may actually be slower if it's a task that can't be performed in parallel (i.e. the next operation cannot be performed until the result of the previous operation is known).
I'd even wager that your statement about GPUs overtaking CPUs in terms of marketshare is wrong. You're completely forgetting about embedded devices which actually (according to embedded.com anyway) make up around 98% of the microprocessor market. - SOS84, on 07/31/2008, -2/+5Remember, this is speculation, and while Apple does work with Nvidia, they have a stronger partnership with ATI. And honestly, I would be more apt to think they would be going with ATI, have you seen how good ATI desktop integrated graphics have become? The rule of thumb is that integrated graphics are half as powerful as a the lowest discrete card from the previous generation. ATI's integrated is nearly as powerful as their 3450 decrete card which is their lowest part in the current generation of hardware. And there is the little old matter of ATI offering superior color (accuracy and intensity) and 2D performance which is something that Job's Mob takes seriously.
- icianom, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3Intel will take a small hit and then gain that ground back and more the following year. There's a reason they've been so successful.
- DifferentAngle, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3I'd care more if intel's 45nm wasnt way faster than TSMC's 45nm. TSMC hasnt made the high-k transition yet so they're slow for a long while.
- trollick, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3GPU will overtake CPU because it will use 40nm instead of 45nm? WTF?
- cquilliam, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3If you're going to spit out a tired cliches, at least get them right.
- MarkusX, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2@Darkhacker
Your explanation about GPGPUs vs CPUs makes much sense and frankly it has stunned me.
I guess, my understanding of GPGPUs was wrong all this time.
I am grateful for your correction.
Not to bring another stupid comparison, but If I had to revise my example, I guess both of them would be automobiles. However, a GPU would be a sports car, while the CPU would be the Jeep 4x4. While the sports car can drive faster on the race track and maybe even on the highway, it cannot go offroad at all. The Jeep however would be able to go on any terrain, but may be slower on the high way and a loser on the race track. - FuzionMonkey, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2About freaking time. GPU's have been getting larger, hotter, and more expensive for the past few years. While Intel and AMD were making smaller, cooler, and more energy efficient CPU's ATI and nVIDIA were pumping out huge and hot cards. (Have you seen the size of an 8800 GTX or an 9800 GX2? Its huge!)
Its about time they start making cooler and smaller chips. - Charlotte_Web, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2It doesn't really matter... here's why.
Suppose you are Nvidia, and you got a significant technological leap-frog over your closest competitor. You will have a small boost in profits, until your competitor catches up, and then the market will rebalance.
OR
You can have a long-term boost in profits by licensing out the technology to your competitor. I bet they will choose this option.
I was a Mac user back in the 90's, when the battle was between the Pentiums and the PowerPC, and the press was always talking about who would be the first consumer CPU manufacturer to break the magical 1 Ghz speed mark. I was elated to read one day that IBM had solved the problem and broken the barrier. Yay, Macs win! Right?
Nooooo! What did IBM do? They used the technology in their enterprise server-grade processors, and they licensed out the technology to Intel, because there was a greater fortune to be made on the PC side. Motorola was famously fumbling around with the PPC design at the time (and it didn't help that Intel siphoned off all of their top engineers). Macs ended up being YEARS behind; it was an embarrassingly bad time to be a Mac user. That was when Jobs introduced the first multi-processor Macs, because he had to have a way to address the ENORMOUS speed difference between the two platforms. Apple would switch to IBM for processor design, but IBM didn't do much better than Moto at cranking up the speed. Thus, Apple bailed on the PPC altogether and launched the Intel Macs. - ichigosama, on 07/31/2008, -3/+5I'm not an AMD 'fanboy' but I do like their chips, both CPU and GPU and since they have a lot of potential being together, makes me wonder what they have been and will be up to with their CPU also
- zephyrprime, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2I wouldn't crow if I were nvidia since they are still stuck at 65nm with a huge fricken die.
- headband, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1if by a year or two you mean a week or two then yes
- inactive, on 07/30/2008, -4/+5that's what she said.
- WildTurkey101, on 07/31/2008, -4/+5This is NOT an apple-to-apple comparison. Buried for the author being an incompetent asshat.
- dblespresso, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2Process development is insanely expensive. This is the indicator in the trend for fabless semiconductor companies. I would be nervous if I was in process development at AMD/Intel, the economics are starting to shift.
- headband, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1Didn't ATI have 55nm chips before Intel moved to 45nm?
- ilgaz, on 07/31/2008, -3/+4You know why this happen? Because there is healthy competition in Desktop GPU scene. You have to invent/enhance or you die.
It is not like CPU scene where a monopoly exists, at least in code level.
Issue is, Intel doesn't have to bother with PowerPC 4 Ghz or something. It doesn't exist.
That is how monopoly is the most evil thing on computers. - joseguia, on 07/31/2008, -3/+3All your GPU are belong to us?
- 0xbaadf00d, on 07/31/2008, -3/+3CPUs are to GPUs, as carriages are to automobiles?
- ell0bo, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1Damn you... leave AMD alone!
- itchyfeet, on 07/31/2008, -3/+2What a pity the G86M chips are all faulty. Hope they're not all built like that.
- devilgoob, on 07/31/2008, -3/+2the most worthless tech article ever, if you want news, go to theinquirer.net
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -2/+1Actually they are are 55 nm and shrinking. Have been for a year or two now. Ahem.
- inactive, on 07/30/2008, -6/+5that's a crazy turn of events
- Omek, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1My chip is smaller than yours! Oh wait...
- tony23, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1Smaller is better?
- Aadain, on 07/31/2008, -14/+13As an Intel employee, let me just say:
Hahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahah *gasp* hahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahah - notrub225, on 07/31/2008, -2/+0omgzerzz loves it
- adamkmccarthy, on 07/31/2008, -4/+2 doubt GPU's are going to be the way forward but it would take a lot to topple intel, you can bet the farm that they're looking at there own brew for this.
- diecastbeatdown, on 07/31/2008, -8/+4***** you, 2 of my friends died from using tired.. oh wait. =/
- terajoule, on 07/31/2008, -9/+4These comments suck. Including this one.
- ColorBlind, on 07/31/2008, -6/+1My semi truck will be smaller then your aircraft carrier! ......
- sibergoth, on 07/31/2008, -8/+1that's what SHE said !
- MarkusX, on 07/31/2008, -8/+1What I meant, was that GPU will 'overtake' CPU in terms of production volume, market share and eventually areas of purpose.
Hence the analogy with the automobiles and horse carriages.
Horse cariages are still used, but in a much smaller and more specialized area (sight seeing, weddings, romantic events). Automobiles have taken over the horse carriage's former area of purpose (transportation). - monicaandreescu, on 07/31/2008, -7/+0nice nice nice
- MCSammer, on 07/31/2008, -10/+2Suck on that intel!
Now if only the phenom's could clock a little higher, but hopefully the SB750 will fix that ^_^ - inactive, on 07/31/2008, -11/+2Yes but will it run Crysis?
(hey it's the first time I say it) - joseguia, on 07/31/2008, -12/+2In Mother RUSSIA the GPU overtakes YOU.
-
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is