I for one would not mind having some sort of super-chip that has so much power that it can handle all of the fancy stuff that GPUs do now. I think it is going to take a long time to get there and even when we do get there I think that there will always be room for add-in boards for the high-end folks. I'm thinking a lot more high-end than games, think graphics for films and other "give me as much power as is possible and I'll show you why I need twice as much" type of industries.
Something just dawned on me, nVidia acquired ULi not too far back it kind of makes me wonder if nVidia is gonna be tightening the thumbscrews to make upcoming ATi products scarce.
Within a few years, graphics themselves will be sucked into the metaphorical black hole that is the CPU. This is where I start to disagree with you, wil. CPUs arent going to pull in a monolithic graphics chip just for the sake of unity. Graphics itself will become X86 based altogether. I dont forsee a processor that contains a GPU; I see a processor that is so parallelized, that the GPU concept cant hold a candle to the raw X86 based processing power the new "general processing unit" would have to offer, thanks to Intel's parallelism efforts. The Video accellerator wont be necessary because the processor has the grunt to do all the work on its own.
i see where your coming from and it makes sense, the only bit i've got a niggle with is the above. there is as far as i can see it two main reasons why CPU's wouldn't have a chance in hell of replicating or replacing a mid range GPU (the one in my sig rig, its pretty mid range in terms of things now) as it stands. the first thing as you said is the fact about the memory (which has already been said) the second is the fact that a powerful GPU will completley smother a high end CPU for complexity (if you look at the transistor count), in some cases it can be almost twice as complex.
so unless there an overall drop in computer graphics (which is completely non-sensical) i think the best thing to happen would be that they intergate a socket on the motherboard for low to mid range GPU solutions (with memory shared with the CPU) or as Roto suggest they could parrallelise it or use spare cores to emulate the work of a dedicated GPU and then as long as they have a universal add-in slot (like AGP or PCI-E x16) for an upgradeable graphics system everyone will be happy. mass producers like dell could churn out 'it'll do' run of the mill systems that utilise the CPU interagted or emulated graphics to keep costs, noise, power uasage, size etc down and then custom builders (like the good people on these forums, at Bit-tech and other such communities) can take the same base components and slot in a High end graphics solution. i know that it would leave us with almst the same situation that we have now but unless there is a huge jump in CPU complexity you cannot expect one to do the work of a GPU well and it proves it when they have the work of a dedicated PPU done just as effectively by a GPU, the memory interface and the complexity of processing unit allows it to do what was the job of the CPU so much more effectively.
sorry for another 'chain-of-thought' bomb but i just had to say it :o
I can definately see some sort of CPU/GPU. Afterall you have hypermemory cards that have local cache and then use the main system memory, but being on-die that will reduce the overhead and enable you to connect the GPU directly to the memory controller. Suddenly you have a Vista enabled integrated solution. Win win.
GPUs are exceptionally fast because they dont have to deal with x86 instructions, they have their own API of more specific instructions sets. They will become more fp computers but not x86 crunchers.
Originally Posted by aggies11 Agreed. But the GPU-on-chip solution isn't really geared for the high end "niche" market that Wil talks about. It's more for the low-end mainstream to very middle-end medium core. These are the kind of people that don't upgrade often to begin with.
Look at the transitor count of the current GPU kings. They dwarf CPU's in complexity. You can't reasonably expect "sneak" that thing onto the CPU. It's arguably *more* complex. It's gonna be stand-alone for a while.
The end of the article is actually the most interesting, I think. The potential for this to make high-end gaming smaller, more niche.
I think this is exactly the sort of thing Epic's CEO was talking about recently when he identified Intel as gaming's biggest threat.
If they throw crappy GPU's on all their chips:
- Everybody can play games now, TONS more people, the gaming market explodes
- These GPU's suck and can't play high-end games. If your a business/ developer, do you make your game for the 1million highend gamers, or the 100million mass market? Bigger markets = more money. Gaming becomes dumbed down for the mainstream and high end gaming dies as we know it. I hope you like Sudoku... :p
Aggies
Good points. The fact is - if you tack on crappier GPUs onto CPUs, or offer crappy hardware to "don't care to be informed" customers, PC gaming will probably end pretty quickly, as people will realize that games look better on cheaper consoles, and sadly, the PC enthusiast market just isn't enough to sustain PC game development.
As for the fear of ATI+AMD forever, I doubt that would be true. It would be suicide for AMD to force all AMD users to use ATI. Just look at Intel. Just because they produce graphics chips (albiet integrated), and CPUs, it doesn't mean your Pentium D or will-be Core 2 Duo won't run off an nVidia/Via/Sis/ATi etc. chipset.
I think that things can only get better. With the technologies of two the biggest CPU and GPU companies, we're bound to see some innovation - FO SHIZZLE.
Unification and simplicity between the physical hardware in computers is and has been the future of IT and PC's. I think that a motherboard 5 years from now will have three different physical interface ports: CPU, RAM, and multipurpose expansion slots (something like pci slots..). I'm not suggesting dependency on onboard VRAM or a RAM system wide turbo-cache, but more what Rotosequence was saying which was the evolutionary destiny of the CPU; it just needs to do everything... Including render superb graphics.
When the boys and girls from ATi and AMD emerge from their "think tank", they will have taken back the performance crown.. rest assured.
To me, this abrupt merger between the Canadian's and Californian's is nothing more than weak executive support and terrible marketing from AMD, and dead-end results for ATi's single GPU mind set. Declining stocks and being democraticly "consumered out" could be attributed to a lack of vision from both company's.
Originally Posted by Nature I agree with RotoSequence,
Unification and simplicity between the physical hardware in computers is and has been the future of IT and PC's. I think that a motherboard 5 years from now will have three different physical interface ports: CPU, RAM, and multipurpose expansion slots (something like pci slots..). I'm not suggesting dependency on onboard VRAM or a RAM system wide turbo-cache, but more what Rotosequence was saying which was the evolutionary destiny of the CPU; it just needs to do everything... Including render superb graphics.
yeah, i see where your coming from because more and more i've noticed / realised that the CPU is no longer really a central processor more of a central co-ordinator and all the tasks which are hard work for a CPU to do have been given out to individual processing units so the individuals can be optimised for the relatively small set of intrusctions they have to cope with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi GPUs are exceptionally fast because they dont have to deal with x86 instructions, they have their own API of more specific instructions sets. They will become more fp computers but not x86 crunchers.
Nature is right, things do need to be brought back together now, i guess you could look at this as having been the development period for whats going to happen next, you get all the seperate pieces to work well and then you've gotta put them together and if you pull it off the total will definately be greater than the sum of the parts, since you'd be removing alot of the overheads that cause delay in the system.
i think it'll be a while before we see a CPU being able to do the work of a dedicated GPU unless some clever person 'out there' managaes to make the instructions for graphical processing alot more efficient for the processor (instead of the processor for the insructions as it is now) and reduces the complexity
No, because graphics requires a specific instruction set to stay fast. CPUs and x86 instructions are very inefficient. GPUs will become more general purpose, but they wont be replaced by CPUs as an x86 behemoth whole. CPUs might get more execution units and smaller processors which make them easier to build and expand like GPUs but both will remain, essentially separate entities even when on the same die. You might even get cache and memory controller sharing for example.
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE in this you mean that i can buy a...say....6 core intel cpu i can use all of them for processing power, and an extra graphics card for higher end gaming. i can use 5 cores for processing and 1 for low graphics power, 4 cores for processing, 1 for the graphics 1 for phisics. 5 cores for processing 1 for phisics and a extra graphics card for high end graphics..... etc....correct?
than this means that this rocks, you can have 3 cores for cpu and 3 cores for GPU and have enough power to play about any game. kewl
or even.... 3 cpu cores 1 ppu core 2 gpu cores + a uber graphics card. could it work?
this looks promising, it may be my future processor.
Noone knows how it will work at the moment. It's all pie in the sky talk. However, it will take more than some fancy hardware design to make it all work.
WinXP Home Eula:
Quote:
1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.
WinXP Pro Eula:
Quote:
Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Product on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device (Workstation Computer). The Product may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.
My bolding for emphasis. I don't think the EULA for Vista is available yet (at least not in its final form). Ofcourse MS might not see multiple cores as the same as multiple physical CPU chips. But don't be surprised to find the word processor replaced by the word core in future EULAs...
Originally Posted by Bursar Noone knows how it will work at the moment. It's all pie in the sky talk. However, it will take more than some fancy hardware design to make it all work.
WinXP Home Eula:
WinXP Pro Eula:
My bolding for emphasis. I don't think the EULA for Vista is available yet (at least not in its final form). Ofcourse MS might not see multiple cores as the same as multiple physical CPU chips. But don't be surprised to find the word processor replaced by the word core in future EULAs...
We had this discussion a few days ago in the discussion thread for the last column we wrote. Microsoft allows you to have 'as many' cores as you can pack in to one socket, but multiple processors is a different thing altogether.
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi No, because graphics requires a specific instruction set to stay fast. CPUs and x86 instructions are very inefficient. GPUs will become more general purpose, but they wont be replaced by CPUs as an x86 behemoth whole. CPUs might get more execution units and smaller processors which make them easier to build and expand like GPUs but both will remain, essentially separate entities even when on the same die. You might even get cache and memory controller sharing for example.
i thought that was the case but judging by other peoples posts they were suggesting (at leats they way i read it) that we were going to be seeing multiple general pupose processors on one die that could do anything i.e phyics, graphics, A.I, x86 instructions etc..
therefore is it not sensible to have another socket on the motherboard for the graphics processor which will still be a seperate entity despite being on the same die as the CPU so that it make upgrading alot easier. but that comes up against the problem of needing either seperate memory or shared memory, if would get them to share say x GB of GDDR 3 or 4 then you'd still be stuck with a bottleneck at the memory controller. which brings it back to putting them on the same die but if you do that then you have to replace both CPU and GPU at the same time which is a bit silly if i'm honest.
Originally Posted by Tim S We had this discussion a few days ago in the discussion thread for the last column we wrote. Microsoft allows you to have 'as many' cores as you can pack in to one socket, but multiple processors is a different thing altogether.
Aye, I found that info on MS's site not long after I posted. I don't frequent all the forums here so I didn't see the other discussion.
But I still wouldn't be suprised to see the EULA changing. Maybe not with Vista, but with whatever comes after.
Originally Posted by K.I.T.T. i thought that was the case but judging by other peoples posts they were suggesting (at leats they way i read it) that we were going to be seeing multiple general pupose processors on one die that could do anything i.e phyics, graphics, A.I, x86 instructions etc..
therefore is it not sensible to have another socket on the motherboard for the graphics processor which will still be a seperate entity despite being on the same die as the CPU so that it make upgrading alot easier. but that comes up against the problem of needing either seperate memory or shared memory, if would get them to share say x GB of GDDR 3 or 4 then you'd still be stuck with a bottleneck at the memory controller. which brings it back to putting them on the same die but if you do that then you have to replace both CPU and GPU at the same time which is a bit silly if i'm honest.
this is going to be interesting...
Well as stated in the article: stuff like AI/Physics is a VERY specific market. For most users turbocache/hypermemory using GPU-main system memory is more than fast enough. It's where most of the market is: integrated. But it will enable AMD to get back at Intels integrated market by having something fast, cheap and onchip that is Vista enabled. There will always be a market for the dedicated graphics cards because you cannot physically fit 512++meg GDDRx memory onto a CPU die too, and the high end GPUs are massive cores which require 8-10 PCB layers, not 4-6 on a mobo. ATM it's one major area where NV have placed themselves and make some money, so they will be keen to keep it, and Intel will want to keep it because Conroe and the future will/should be good gaming processors.
Admittidly I havent read everyone's replies though.
The EULA wont change, MS has stated it's socket point for years.
Originally Posted by Bursar Aye, I found that info on MS's site not long after I posted. I don't frequent all the forums here so I didn't see the other discussion.
But I still wouldn't be suprised to see the EULA changing. Maybe not with Vista, but with whatever comes after.
For what it's worth, here's my thoughts on the future of high end PC gaming.
From a strictly sales based economic standpoint, the fears expressed by many about the demise of PC gaming on dedicated hardware would seem justified. After all, why spend the R&D money on a piece of top-of-the-line hardware that only a very few people will ever buy.
Than answer, I think, is marketing.
I think this is true even today. Take nVidia's 7850 GX2 video cards. Despite being based on existing mobile GPUs and being based on past achievements, they must have taken a lot of work to design, get running and market. I Know they had a lot of headaches making consumer level quad SLi work on these. I'll bet you that this amount of effort cannot be justifgied on a purely sales revenue basis. On the other hand, the 7950 has generated a TREMENDOUS amount of free publicity for nVidia, and I'll bet that that publicity has helped their sales of the lower end, more mainstream graphics cards. We may all want a pair of 7950's in quad SLi, but for a lot of people that translates to a reality of a pair of 6800GTs or a single 7900GTX. We want the top but we choose a more reasonable part from the same manufacturer. Companies need an OTT product to draw attention to their mainstream product. The gaming market is important to companies not only for the money we spend, but also for they hype we generate.
Another point that occoured to me as I was cooking dinner was that the corporate market also needs high end GPUs for CAD and video editing and the like. integrated graphics are simply not going to be able to handle the workload that these tasks require. Now, lets say I am a big company (Cthippo Inc. :D ) and I need a thousand new computer for my company. 950 of those will be workstations for which mediocre graphics will work fine. 10 will be servers that don't need graphics, and the last 40 are for my CAD team and need top-of-the-line graphics cards with an upgrade path so that when AutoCAD 2016 or DirectX14 comes out I can get new cards to work with those. Do you think that Dell or HP or whoever is going to say "well, we have the workstations and servers in stock, but you'll have to go somewhere else for the CAD boxes. I don't think so.
I can see a seperation of the high performance market encompassing high end corporate and gamers diverging from the mainstream market in the future. Already there is some crossover as I know a few here on BT (including myself) are using Opteron processors and server hardware in their gaming machines.
As a Blue-blue fan I I'm concerned about where I'll be going after I get bored with my dual 7950 system (No, I don't have one, but that's on the horizon). My point is that it will probably be a couple years before the effects of this are really felt and by then we'll have a much better idea of where things are going.
EDIT: This thread really lends itself to long-windedness, doesn't it?
The way I see it is quite simple:
1. Business models will not change only be slightly modified. The industry is profitable and the risk in a totally new strategy for AMD would be dangerous.
2. They will continue to produce ATI based graphics cards from the small to medium end.
3. They will produce a new CPU with GPU but it will only compete at the low end line directly against Intels embedded graphics core line. Why because the lead time and complexity of the current generation of GPU's outstrips the changes in CPU development. It would slow and stagnate a market that is profitable as it is. Intel and AMD want the mid to high end graphics market because they can sell the accompanying high end processors and chipsets to go with it.
4. nNvidia will just become more of a niche player providing chipsets to both AMD and Intel. ATI will just produce motherboard chipsets for AMD. Little change as ATI crossfire is only just growing. AMD will leverage Crossfire to be just AMD chipsets and AMD will bundle and make a centrino push platform. This is especially relevant in the mobility market to create a better laptop platform.
5. The future is still not rosy and the purchase is still to hide a big major fact that AMD has not and will not be able to counter the processing power of conroe for some time. Yes they may be first to 4-cores but Intel will quickly release their 4-core solution and AMD will still be outperformed UNTIL they redesign the current Athlon to outperform conroe.
6. The industry needs the current way of separate graphics cards for some time as it makes different products to different markets. The majority of people buy graphics cards to play games and give the sense of power. They buy a graphics card based on the amount of cash prepared to spend and how much they play games. Business buys emedded graphics because it is cheap and simple. Vista changes things only a little because most businesses will turn off the aero effects and only upgrade/turn on aero effects until hardware catches up and does aero with ease and cheap cost.
7. Its the burger effect - McDonald's just had one type of burger on sale it then produced and expensive deluxe burger and a cutodwn burger. What happend? A total increase in customers and the majority chose the mid regular burger and a few chose the small and expensive burgers. People want choice in graphics cards and cpu's thiings that limit that flexibility will turn consumers away.
To sum up. AMD is not going to produce an Uber CPU with top end GPU as it will not gain anything and only hurt/canabilise existing profit margins. AMD will produce a CPU with GPU capabilities to run Vista with aero with a simple motherboard for business. The combined knowledge within the two companies could produce better CPU's and GPU's but that depends on the management of both companies to merge successfully. A good possibility for speed of new CPU and GPU would be a skunk works where AMD and ATI engineers go off away from both companies and produce something alot better and faster than current or future generations as demonstrated by Intel with their Israile development team for Centrino.
AMD isn't trying to make a 'platform'. it also wants not-so-big companies to produce AMD compatible products. things wwill suck for AMD/ATI for a while, but when they return, they will have the upperhand everywhere, because as separate companies, Intel and Nvidia won't be able to compete with such unification. AMD also wants Nvidia solutions for AMD processors, at least for the time being. The christmas-coloured company WILL be a good thing. The boys in green have little to worry about for a long time, because intel will be a while building its own high-end graphics. Conroe will be running crossfire, and that will be good for ATI. That is what I believe.
Great article :)
I personally will enjoy seeing the smug gits that are screwing up gaming with their "the way it's meant to be played" rubbish that doesn't help games at ALL dying on their arses and AMD-ATi and Intel face up.
Offcial drivers not updated for 5 months? (internal name stayed the same and so did file date) all their cool stuff stays in beta for months despite them selling it (quad SLi is still not offically supported in retail drivers).
I work in support and NVIDIA are rubbish at it. Intel are good, AMD very good, ATi are okay.
To me the futures bright :)
CPUs: AMD now has graphics, motherboards and CPUs. Intel has CPUs, motherboards and will soon have proper graphics. This leaves NVIDIA as the only company out of the three that makes just graphics and motherboards. Will we see an x86 CPU from NVIDIA as it reinvents itself to compete? It could certainly be possible that we see a third player in the CPU sector - it could be crucial for NVIDIA's continued profitability.
SLi CPUs anyone? it would almost seem to make sense for them to become a total solution provider, much like intel.
I personally have always been a green-green fanboy (no I'm not ashamed to admit it) so I find the merger a little disheartening, especially at the thought of less choice in my systems.
However, the idea of multipurpose cpu/gpu/ppu ships is very enticing, especially if the arcitecture allows for developers to specify different configurations on the fly, ie:
Code:
Dual 6 Core Processors Dual 4 Core Processors
Adobe After Effects 9.0
1 Cores For OS 1 Cores For OS
7 Cores For CPU 5 Cores For CPU
4 Cores For GPU 2 Cores For GPU
Unreal Tournament 2012
1 Cores For OS 1 Cores For OS
2 Cores For CPU 2 Core For CPU
2 Core For AI or Server Extras 1 Physics
1 Core For PPU 4 Cores For GPUs
6 Cores For GPUs
All of which share whatever system ram is there. This path should appeal to most of us who lan, because in essence it means that machines could get alot smaller. The only thing I can see being a hitch in all this is a unified instruction set to handle all the different functions.
I'm still hoping for the SLi cpus (yes i know it would be a marketing gimmick for multi core)
Originally Posted by Reins Perhaps as time goes on there wont be anymore high end pc gaming and all of the high end gaming will be done on consoles :shrug: I guess we always have them. Perhaps by that time I'll be out of my gaming phase.
1) I don't like the idea of integration because i seriously doubt it will be flexible - a gpu core will only be a gpu core & a cpu core will only be a cpu core (unless they GREATLY modify x86). It also cuts my system option Greatly: Only Intel MB + CPU/GPU OR Nvidia/ATI MB + CPU/GPU. What happens to SIS, Via...
2) I'm surprised no one has suggested Nvidia & Via get together. They both have platforms but I'd really like to see what Nvidia could do for mini-itx. Of course this could also kill Via's Intel & AMD potential - but they're being squeezed there anyway.
----------
"Bluetooth": I told my sister it's like a green thumb but for electonics geeks
Excellent article! It runs hand in hand with a lot of my initial thoughts after hearing about the purchase of ATi from AMD.. and introduces a lot of stuff I didnt think about (mostly on the intel/nvidia side of the board... I instantly thought of 4x4 and drop in GPU's for the platform when I heard the official news of the buy-out).
I think it will be interesting to see if ATi/AMD develop a mobile platform based off the 4x4 concept. A moble dual socket platform that allows for drop in GPU upgrades, IMO, would rock the moble market and push a lot of people who shy from having a lappy as their primary rig into finally considering it. Right now, upgradable graphics is one of the major advantages gained by having a PC over a laptop.
and also, in regards to integrated graphics on a CPU.. its really too early to voice my opinion on whether or not I think its a good thing or a bad thing. Mostly since, such a move could redefine the way we look at graphics. I wont even go into my ideas on such implications.. as this post would be 3 miles long and likely very confusing as my thoughts arent organized at all.
Just wondered, are you going to remove this bit: "Intel has already revoked ATI's license for its bus technology" - seeing as, you know, it's not actually true?
Just wondered, are you going to remove this bit: "Intel has already revoked ATI's license for its bus technology" - seeing as, you know, it's not actually true?
Comments 26 to 50 of 51
i see where your coming from and it makes sense, the only bit i've got a niggle with is the above. there is as far as i can see it two main reasons why CPU's wouldn't have a chance in hell of replicating or replacing a mid range GPU (the one in my sig rig, its pretty mid range in terms of things now) as it stands. the first thing as you said is the fact about the memory (which has already been said) the second is the fact that a powerful GPU will completley smother a high end CPU for complexity (if you look at the transistor count), in some cases it can be almost twice as complex.
so unless there an overall drop in computer graphics (which is completely non-sensical) i think the best thing to happen would be that they intergate a socket on the motherboard for low to mid range GPU solutions (with memory shared with the CPU) or as Roto suggest they could parrallelise it or use spare cores to emulate the work of a dedicated GPU and then as long as they have a universal add-in slot (like AGP or PCI-E x16) for an upgradeable graphics system everyone will be happy. mass producers like dell could churn out 'it'll do' run of the mill systems that utilise the CPU interagted or emulated graphics to keep costs, noise, power uasage, size etc down and then custom builders (like the good people on these forums, at Bit-tech and other such communities) can take the same base components and slot in a High end graphics solution. i know that it would leave us with almst the same situation that we have now but unless there is a huge jump in CPU complexity you cannot expect one to do the work of a GPU well and it proves it when they have the work of a dedicated PPU done just as effectively by a GPU, the memory interface and the complexity of processing unit allows it to do what was the job of the CPU so much more effectively.
sorry for another 'chain-of-thought' bomb but i just had to say it :o
GPUs are exceptionally fast because they dont have to deal with x86 instructions, they have their own API of more specific instructions sets. They will become more fp computers but not x86 crunchers.
Good points. The fact is - if you tack on crappier GPUs onto CPUs, or offer crappy hardware to "don't care to be informed" customers, PC gaming will probably end pretty quickly, as people will realize that games look better on cheaper consoles, and sadly, the PC enthusiast market just isn't enough to sustain PC game development.
As for the fear of ATI+AMD forever, I doubt that would be true. It would be suicide for AMD to force all AMD users to use ATI. Just look at Intel. Just because they produce graphics chips (albiet integrated), and CPUs, it doesn't mean your Pentium D or will-be Core 2 Duo won't run off an nVidia/Via/Sis/ATi etc. chipset.
I think that things can only get better. With the technologies of two the biggest CPU and GPU companies, we're bound to see some innovation - FO SHIZZLE.
Unification and simplicity between the physical hardware in computers is and has been the future of IT and PC's. I think that a motherboard 5 years from now will have three different physical interface ports: CPU, RAM, and multipurpose expansion slots (something like pci slots..). I'm not suggesting dependency on onboard VRAM or a RAM system wide turbo-cache, but more what Rotosequence was saying which was the evolutionary destiny of the CPU; it just needs to do everything... Including render superb graphics.
When the boys and girls from ATi and AMD emerge from their "think tank", they will have taken back the performance crown.. rest assured.
To me, this abrupt merger between the Canadian's and Californian's is nothing more than weak executive support and terrible marketing from AMD, and dead-end results for ATi's single GPU mind set. Declining stocks and being democraticly "consumered out" could be attributed to a lack of vision from both company's.
yeah, i see where your coming from because more and more i've noticed / realised that the CPU is no longer really a central processor more of a central co-ordinator and all the tasks which are hard work for a CPU to do have been given out to individual processing units so the individuals can be optimised for the relatively small set of intrusctions they have to cope with.
Nature is right, things do need to be brought back together now, i guess you could look at this as having been the development period for whats going to happen next, you get all the seperate pieces to work well and then you've gotta put them together and if you pull it off the total will definately be greater than the sum of the parts, since you'd be removing alot of the overheads that cause delay in the system.
i think it'll be a while before we see a CPU being able to do the work of a dedicated GPU unless some clever person 'out there' managaes to make the instructions for graphical processing alot more efficient for the processor (instead of the processor for the insructions as it is now) and reduces the complexity
EDIT: sorry its another big one
WinXP Home Eula:
i thought that was the case but judging by other peoples posts they were suggesting (at leats they way i read it) that we were going to be seeing multiple general pupose processors on one die that could do anything i.e phyics, graphics, A.I, x86 instructions etc..
therefore is it not sensible to have another socket on the motherboard for the graphics processor which will still be a seperate entity despite being on the same die as the CPU so that it make upgrading alot easier. but that comes up against the problem of needing either seperate memory or shared memory, if would get them to share say x GB of GDDR 3 or 4 then you'd still be stuck with a bottleneck at the memory controller. which brings it back to putting them on the same die but if you do that then you have to replace both CPU and GPU at the same time which is a bit silly if i'm honest.
this is going to be interesting...
But I still wouldn't be suprised to see the EULA changing. Maybe not with Vista, but with whatever comes after.
Well as stated in the article: stuff like AI/Physics is a VERY specific market. For most users turbocache/hypermemory using GPU-main system memory is more than fast enough. It's where most of the market is: integrated. But it will enable AMD to get back at Intels integrated market by having something fast, cheap and onchip that is Vista enabled. There will always be a market for the dedicated graphics cards because you cannot physically fit 512++meg GDDRx memory onto a CPU die too, and the high end GPUs are massive cores which require 8-10 PCB layers, not 4-6 on a mobo. ATM it's one major area where NV have placed themselves and make some money, so they will be keen to keep it, and Intel will want to keep it because Conroe and the future will/should be good gaming processors.
Admittidly I havent read everyone's replies though.
The EULA wont change, MS has stated it's socket point for years.
From a strictly sales based economic standpoint, the fears expressed by many about the demise of PC gaming on dedicated hardware would seem justified. After all, why spend the R&D money on a piece of top-of-the-line hardware that only a very few people will ever buy.
Than answer, I think, is marketing.
I think this is true even today. Take nVidia's 7850 GX2 video cards. Despite being based on existing mobile GPUs and being based on past achievements, they must have taken a lot of work to design, get running and market. I Know they had a lot of headaches making consumer level quad SLi work on these. I'll bet you that this amount of effort cannot be justifgied on a purely sales revenue basis. On the other hand, the 7950 has generated a TREMENDOUS amount of free publicity for nVidia, and I'll bet that that publicity has helped their sales of the lower end, more mainstream graphics cards. We may all want a pair of 7950's in quad SLi, but for a lot of people that translates to a reality of a pair of 6800GTs or a single 7900GTX. We want the top but we choose a more reasonable part from the same manufacturer. Companies need an OTT product to draw attention to their mainstream product. The gaming market is important to companies not only for the money we spend, but also for they hype we generate.
Another point that occoured to me as I was cooking dinner was that the corporate market also needs high end GPUs for CAD and video editing and the like. integrated graphics are simply not going to be able to handle the workload that these tasks require. Now, lets say I am a big company (Cthippo Inc. :D ) and I need a thousand new computer for my company. 950 of those will be workstations for which mediocre graphics will work fine. 10 will be servers that don't need graphics, and the last 40 are for my CAD team and need top-of-the-line graphics cards with an upgrade path so that when AutoCAD 2016 or DirectX14 comes out I can get new cards to work with those. Do you think that Dell or HP or whoever is going to say "well, we have the workstations and servers in stock, but you'll have to go somewhere else for the CAD boxes. I don't think so.
I can see a seperation of the high performance market encompassing high end corporate and gamers diverging from the mainstream market in the future. Already there is some crossover as I know a few here on BT (including myself) are using Opteron processors and server hardware in their gaming machines.
As a Blue-blue fan I I'm concerned about where I'll be going after I get bored with my dual 7950 system (No, I don't have one, but that's on the horizon). My point is that it will probably be a couple years before the effects of this are really felt and by then we'll have a much better idea of where things are going.
EDIT: This thread really lends itself to long-windedness, doesn't it?
The way I see it is quite simple:
1. Business models will not change only be slightly modified. The industry is profitable and the risk in a totally new strategy for AMD would be dangerous.
2. They will continue to produce ATI based graphics cards from the small to medium end.
3. They will produce a new CPU with GPU but it will only compete at the low end line directly against Intels embedded graphics core line. Why because the lead time and complexity of the current generation of GPU's outstrips the changes in CPU development. It would slow and stagnate a market that is profitable as it is. Intel and AMD want the mid to high end graphics market because they can sell the accompanying high end processors and chipsets to go with it.
4. nNvidia will just become more of a niche player providing chipsets to both AMD and Intel. ATI will just produce motherboard chipsets for AMD. Little change as ATI crossfire is only just growing. AMD will leverage Crossfire to be just AMD chipsets and AMD will bundle and make a centrino push platform. This is especially relevant in the mobility market to create a better laptop platform.
5. The future is still not rosy and the purchase is still to hide a big major fact that AMD has not and will not be able to counter the processing power of conroe for some time. Yes they may be first to 4-cores but Intel will quickly release their 4-core solution and AMD will still be outperformed UNTIL they redesign the current Athlon to outperform conroe.
6. The industry needs the current way of separate graphics cards for some time as it makes different products to different markets. The majority of people buy graphics cards to play games and give the sense of power. They buy a graphics card based on the amount of cash prepared to spend and how much they play games. Business buys emedded graphics because it is cheap and simple. Vista changes things only a little because most businesses will turn off the aero effects and only upgrade/turn on aero effects until hardware catches up and does aero with ease and cheap cost.
7. Its the burger effect - McDonald's just had one type of burger on sale it then produced and expensive deluxe burger and a cutodwn burger. What happend? A total increase in customers and the majority chose the mid regular burger and a few chose the small and expensive burgers. People want choice in graphics cards and cpu's thiings that limit that flexibility will turn consumers away.
To sum up. AMD is not going to produce an Uber CPU with top end GPU as it will not gain anything and only hurt/canabilise existing profit margins. AMD will produce a CPU with GPU capabilities to run Vista with aero with a simple motherboard for business. The combined knowledge within the two companies could produce better CPU's and GPU's but that depends on the management of both companies to merge successfully. A good possibility for speed of new CPU and GPU would be a skunk works where AMD and ATI engineers go off away from both companies and produce something alot better and faster than current or future generations as demonstrated by Intel with their Israile development team for Centrino.
I personally will enjoy seeing the smug gits that are screwing up gaming with their "the way it's meant to be played" rubbish that doesn't help games at ALL dying on their arses and AMD-ATi and Intel face up.
Offcial drivers not updated for 5 months? (internal name stayed the same and so did file date) all their cool stuff stays in beta for months despite them selling it (quad SLi is still not offically supported in retail drivers).
I work in support and NVIDIA are rubbish at it. Intel are good, AMD very good, ATi are okay.
To me the futures bright :)
SLi CPUs anyone? it would almost seem to make sense for them to become a total solution provider, much like intel.
I personally have always been a green-green fanboy (no I'm not ashamed to admit it) so I find the merger a little disheartening, especially at the thought of less choice in my systems.
However, the idea of multipurpose cpu/gpu/ppu ships is very enticing, especially if the arcitecture allows for developers to specify different configurations on the fly, ie:
Dual 6 Core Processors Dual 4 Core Processors Adobe After Effects 9.0 1 Cores For OS 1 Cores For OS 7 Cores For CPU 5 Cores For CPU 4 Cores For GPU 2 Cores For GPU Unreal Tournament 2012 1 Cores For OS 1 Cores For OS 2 Cores For CPU 2 Core For CPU 2 Core For AI or Server Extras 1 Physics 1 Core For PPU 4 Cores For GPUs 6 Cores For GPUsAll of which share whatever system ram is there. This path should appeal to most of us who lan, because in essence it means that machines could get alot smaller. The only thing I can see being a hitch in all this is a unified instruction set to handle all the different functions.I'm still hoping for the SLi cpus (yes i know it would be a marketing gimmick for multi core)
You mean its just a phase?
2) I'm surprised no one has suggested Nvidia & Via get together. They both have platforms but I'd really like to see what Nvidia could do for mini-itx. Of course this could also kill Via's Intel & AMD potential - but they're being squeezed there anyway.
----------
"Bluetooth": I told my sister it's like a green thumb but for electonics geeks
I think it will be interesting to see if ATi/AMD develop a mobile platform based off the 4x4 concept. A moble dual socket platform that allows for drop in GPU upgrades, IMO, would rock the moble market and push a lot of people who shy from having a lappy as their primary rig into finally considering it. Right now, upgradable graphics is one of the major advantages gained by having a PC over a laptop.
and also, in regards to integrated graphics on a CPU.. its really too early to voice my opinion on whether or not I think its a good thing or a bad thing. Mostly since, such a move could redefine the way we look at graphics. I wont even go into my ideas on such implications.. as this post would be 3 miles long and likely very confusing as my thoughts arent organized at all.
Thanks for the article - interesting read.
Just wondered, are you going to remove this bit: "Intel has already revoked ATI's license for its bus technology" - seeing as, you know, it's not actually true?
It's updated now though - thanks for reminding me. ;)