• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Fusion

Isn't Bulldozer their chip that combines graphics and video... it might just be the server one and there's a desktop one with Bulldozer 'in it'.

And stable doesn't mean good. Who's personality needs to change? If you think that doing stuff for the good of humanity and not for a small piece of paper is bad then yes, you should change your personality :p
 
Fusion is graphics + processor, bulldozer the many cores running one thread. I think so at least. Server chips wont have graphics on the processor die.

Stable does mean good in my definition. Everyone should be nice and love each other and then there'd be no war just doesn't make economic or sociological sense. People do, broadly speaking, what they think is best for themselves and those around them. I think that's fine. Government (with varying degrees of success) only needs point people in roughly the right direction. It's inelegant and inefficient, but it suffices.
 
Why settle for 'suffice' when you can have perfection?

I don't think the graphics+processor chip will be called Fusion, since that just seems to be a running theme for AMD. I think it's their motto.
 
If they can get one thread to work on multiple cores that would be great, brings something new to the table, wonder how well it would scale.

Are their any articles newer than 2 years old?
 
I doubt many people here will be interested in fusion since dedicated GPUs will be essential if you want to play the latest games in high quality.

I currently have a Q6600 @ 3.4GHz and while very happy with the performance l would like to upgrade when 32nm CPUs are available. I was hoping for a Q2 2010 when Intel has their new 32nm CPU out but this Bulldozer architecture from AMD sounds promising.

If they manage to achieve what it is rumored with Bulldozer then they will have a killer CPU in their hands. But the latest news show Bulldozer coming in 2011 and l don't think l can wait for AMD. In addition lets hope AMD survives until their new architecture is out with the Phenom II.
 
Superewza said:
Yes... that's why it's in the chip. It saves you having to buy a separate graphics card.
Click to expand...

Except it won't - as I understand it, it'll be capable of general purpose GPU tasks [compute shaders etc] and light 3D work. It won't be a replacement for a full blown GPU, it'll just replace the current idea of having an IGP on the motherboard; instead it will be on the physical CPU device.

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong, ta. With a data source to back it up - I'll openly admit what I know about Fusion is basically based on hearsay and apocryphal internet rumourmongering, and I'm too busy just now to look into it extensively.
 
JonJ678 said:
One thread across several cores doesn't sound that hard.
Click to expand...

*cough* *sputter* You've not studied concurrency or parallel computing issues, have you? :)

This is practically the single biggest challenge facing computing today, solving issues of concurrency in the general case is not nearly achievable right now. Add to it trying to do this in realtime, using code that was not designed for parallel processing, and you have an effective impossibility.

Issues like this are why developers are complaining that the PS3 is so much harder to code for - writing something that runs perfectly on a parallel system is very hard. Trying to retrofit concurrency on a single thread is impossible, in the general case. Potentially possible in specific cases, but that does not give you anywhere near linear scaling.

Looks like AMD are taking a Cell-style approach, with units that can operate as CPUs as well as GPUs - certainly it's a good way to leverage their GPU power, which has increased faster in the last 3 years than CPUs have. I think it's going to be a bigger letdown than the Cell was, though, not delivering even close to the hype.
 
StevenRaith said:
Except it won't - as I understand it, it'll be capable of general purpose GPU tasks [compute shaders etc] and light 3D work. It won't be a replacement for a full blown GPU, it'll just replace the current idea of having an IGP on the motherboard; instead it will be on the physical CPU device.

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong, ta. With a data source to back it up - I'll openly admit what I know about Fusion is basically based on hearsay and apocryphal internet rumourmongering, and I'm too busy just now to look into it extensively.
Click to expand...

It will have direct access to the backside pool of main memory directly from the processor socket. This means lower latency time, by a long shot. Now since no technical details have been released nobody knows the power of these GPUs, so they may be a replacement for the Chipset graphics or a replacement for a Graphics Card, or maybe both, depending on your model.
 
fross said:
This is practically the single biggest challenge facing computing today, solving issues of concurrency in the general case is not nearly achievable right now. Add to it trying to do this in realtime, using code that was not designed for parallel processing, and you have an effective impossibility.
Click to expand...

This will be the holy grail of CPU design, if it works.
 
seems a bit overkill for what we use computer for.

it was always the speed until they got to 3GHz, then the went 64bit which slowed the down a bit, the x2, x3, x4 and now with the i7 chip we can get 4GHz quite nicely with overclocking.

My pc isn't overclocked because I don't feel the need to yet but in game not all my cores are maxed out.

I can understand that from a gpu side of things the chip will need to more cores, but does it really need 16?

Whatever happens we all know we're going to get one but think about the other issues....

we're going to have to either get a large screen or we're going to have to scroll on the onscreen readouts

I can't be done with that :'(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom