Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 2,178
- Location
- Amsterdam
[font=arial,helvetica][size=+1] AMD + ATI and CPU/GPU integration[/size][/font][font=arial,helvetica][size=-1] - tech[/size][/font]
[font=arial,helvetica](hx) 08:34 PM EDT - Jul,24 2006 - [/font]Post a comment
Now that the merger is official, AMD has a set of pages up with information on the combined company's future plans - enable the combined company to compete on the corporate desktop, and system-level CPU-GPU integration. They also mentioned die-level CPU-GPU integration:
[font=arial,helvetica](hx) 08:34 PM EDT - Jul,24 2006 - [/font]Post a comment
Now that the merger is official, AMD has a set of pages up with information on the combined company's future plans - enable the combined company to compete on the corporate desktop, and system-level CPU-GPU integration. They also mentioned die-level CPU-GPU integration:
Scott Wasson over at TR had expressed some doubts that putting a GPU into a CPU socket would actually be desirable. I've seen these doubts expressed elsewhere in response to our AMD-ATI article. The reasoning goes that a PCIe video card with high-bandwidth GDDR3 will outperform a GPU that's placed in a cHT socket to share a pool of DDR2 with the CPU. As far as it goes, it is, in fact, correct that putting 512MB of GDDR3 on a daughtercard with the GPU and linking it to the CPU over PCIe will get you more performance than just dropping a GPU into a cHT socket. This is just throwing hardware and money at the problem, though.
The point of doing a cHT-compatible GPU that's a drop-in replacement for a second Athlon is that it's much, much cheaper and less wasteful than a dedicated daughtercard (with a dedicated cache of GDDR3), and the performance is pretty good. So from a price/performance standpoint, glueless cHT and a shared CPU-GPU memory pool will beat the more expensive daughtercard solution by a significant enough margin to make it attractive to many gamers.
The other issue that I want to address is this article over at the Inquirer. Clearly, Charlie has some of the same information that I have about Intel's various internal research initiatives. Intel is a big, research-driven company that has many teams working on many different types of projects at any given moment. I know for a fact that they have teams looking at Cell-like projects that combine DSP and general-purpose cores. They're also looking at low-power x86 cores, and Niagara-style chip multiprocessing, and lots of other exotic stuff.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060724-7333.html
The point of doing a cHT-compatible GPU that's a drop-in replacement for a second Athlon is that it's much, much cheaper and less wasteful than a dedicated daughtercard (with a dedicated cache of GDDR3), and the performance is pretty good. So from a price/performance standpoint, glueless cHT and a shared CPU-GPU memory pool will beat the more expensive daughtercard solution by a significant enough margin to make it attractive to many gamers.
The other issue that I want to address is this article over at the Inquirer. Clearly, Charlie has some of the same information that I have about Intel's various internal research initiatives. Intel is a big, research-driven company that has many teams working on many different types of projects at any given moment. I know for a fact that they have teams looking at Cell-like projects that combine DSP and general-purpose cores. They're also looking at low-power x86 cores, and Niagara-style chip multiprocessing, and lots of other exotic stuff.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060724-7333.html
