Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD & ATI what does the future hold?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 24, 2006 11:52:51 AM

The questions that I have are:
1. Will we be seeing a whole new line of Motherboards with ATI chipsets?
2. What is the future for Nvidia chipset Motherboards?
3. Is Intel going to turn around and buy Nvidia?

More about : amd ati future hold

July 24, 2006 12:34:52 PM

Quote:
The questions that I have are:
1. Will we be seeing a whole new line of Motherboards with ATI chipsets?
2. What is the future for Nvidia chipset Motherboards?
3. Is Intel going to turn around and buy Nvidia?



3.Intel has got it's own chipsets
2.Depending on the position ATI will asume, Nvida will have more or less hard work to do.
1.Maybe, however, one thing is sure; AMD will have home made chipsets and this can't ba a bad thing.
July 24, 2006 12:38:55 PM

3. dont think so, Intel doesnt really need nVidia
Related resources
July 24, 2006 1:07:47 PM

it means higher and stagnating prices within the video card market and a possible slowdown in development. i think this acquisition will force people onto the only independant format left and that will be intel because i think third party makers may dry up for the amd-ati company
July 24, 2006 1:12:23 PM

What are you talking about? Intel has thrown to the curb anyone they could have considered a partner. AMD has got where it is because of working so well with its partners. The little guys usually have to work together to be able to compete with the big guys and that's all that is happening here. Nvidia will have less guess work to do in designing both chipsets and future GPU's because any compatibility issues will be much easier to take care of or avoid in the first place. In other words, we should finally see so well done drivers from both.
July 24, 2006 1:15:24 PM

The future holds ... *drumroll* ... higher prices for consumers whether they buy AMD or Intel.

Reduction in competition == consumers get screwed :?
July 24, 2006 1:23:29 PM

So true...look at Microsoft. The other way that I look at it is, if AMD & ATI work together it actually may lower prices, because the technology will be availble between the two.
July 24, 2006 1:45:48 PM

And what competition has been eliminated?

ATI still has to compete with Nvidia. AMD still has to compete with Intel. Its still Crossfire vs. SLI and K8 (later K8L) vs. Conroe.

So where exactly has competition disappeared? The only thing we'll see now is tighter integration between AMD and ATI products. But that doesn't mean we'll see an end in competition with Nvidia on the AMD side or an end in competition with ATI on the Intel side.

Unless Nvidia and Intel whine like little girls and go home.
July 24, 2006 1:53:28 PM

Quote:
i have said this on another thread and it is that i hope AMD still allow ATI to be a seprate company whilst still benefitting. if they try to make ATI their lapdog then the gfx cards may suffer as they will probably be more interested in chipsets.


I agree. I think a good example is the Dell/Alienware buyout. Granted its still young but there haven't been any major changes (that I'm aware of) to Alienware other than increased buying power. AMD would be crazy to make ATI their lapdogs, it would alienate a large segment of ATI gfx buyers. I hope the only big change is better AMD/ATI combo offers and better AMD competition due to 'in-house' chipsets
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
July 24, 2006 1:58:56 PM

Quote:
The questions that I have are:
1. Will we be seeing a whole new line of Motherboards with ATI chipsets?
2. What is the future for Nvidia chipset Motherboards?
3. Is Intel going to turn around and buy Nvidia?


1. I would say that is the biggest advantage with the merger
2. Can't see nVidia doing anything different as a result of the AMD/ATI merger
3. Probably not
July 24, 2006 2:13:13 PM

Quote:
And what competition has been eliminated?

ATI still has to compete with Nvidia. AMD still has to compete with Intel. Its still Crossfire vs. SLI and K8 (later K8L) vs. Conroe.

So where exactly has competition disappeared? The only thing we'll see now is tighter integration between AMD and ATI products. But that doesn't mean we'll see an end in competition with Nvidia on the AMD side or an end in competition with ATI on the Intel side.

Unless Nvidia and Intel whine like little girls and go home.


The thing you are missing is AMD is going to integrate the GPU into its multi core CPUs eventually.... Intel will do the same thing also.... There will no longer be a graphic card need.... So NVidia needs to get merged with someone or die....

Yes chipsets will also get integrated into CPU....

I have been talking about system on a chip since this rumor started, but most people have not cought on to this.... They finally hinted at it in the press release:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/07/24/amd_acquires_ati/
Quote:
AMD hinted that ATI's expertise in graphics may enable graphics functions that are directly integrated into the processor: "In 2008 and beyond, AMD aims to move beyond current technological configurations to transform processing technologies, with silicon-specific platforms that integrate microprocessors and graphics processors
July 24, 2006 2:16:14 PM

Quote:
1. Will we be seeing a whole new line of Motherboards with ATI chipsets?

Yes, perhaps even motherboards with HTX graphics cards.
*drools*
Quote:
2. What is the future for Nvidia chipset Motherboards?

No idea really...
Quote:
3. Is Intel going to turn around and buy Nvidia?

Possibly.
July 24, 2006 2:35:58 PM

Actually it will be possible, but we're a long time away from that. :) 

If I was Nvidia, I would be pretty angry with AMD although, I’m sure AMD would have gone with Nvidia if they had had the capitol, but seeing as Nvidia is worth quite a bit more, it won’t happen. Now Intel on the other hand… :) 
July 24, 2006 2:38:26 PM

Quote:
The questions that I have are:
1. Will we be seeing a whole new line of Motherboards with ATI chipsets?
2. What is the future for Nvidia chipset Motherboards?
3. Is Intel going to turn around and buy Nvidia?



Answer:

1. Yes, there will be an AMD/ATI motherboards and probably will become the best line of Crossfire platform.

2. Nvidia will be doing fine for Intel and AMD Nforce chipset motherboards will continue to sell if not be in higher deman which it is.

3. No, I don't think Intel will buy Nvidia for I don't think Nvidia want to sell the company. Both are very successful in their product so I don't see the reasons in merging.
July 24, 2006 2:42:57 PM

Quote:
gpu's and chipsets being intergrated into cpu's. no chance in the home consumer market. seriously those solutions will not provide the performance IMO.

the server and business market however maybe. right now they don't need much of a GPU so it would make sense. then again for low price simple to use notebooks that idea may go far as the space savig and perhaps even power would justify it.


You don't think a 2ghz ATI GPU inside an AMD multicore CPU connected through Hypertransport will outperform todays ATI 500mhz(or whatever they are) GPU connected through the PCI-E socket....

I will let you take that back.... You couldn't be more wrong!!!!
July 24, 2006 2:47:38 PM

For the stupid people around here I'll make it simple:

4 choices => 2 choices == bad for consumers ...
a c 479 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
a b Î Nvidia
July 24, 2006 2:49:05 PM

Quote:
The questions that I have are:
1. Will we be seeing a whole new line of Motherboards with ATI chipsets?
2. What is the future for Nvidia chipset Motherboards?
3. Is Intel going to turn around and buy Nvidia?


1. ATI will be the leading supplier of chipsets for AMD. I haven't read any of the financial analyses about the merger, but I would guess that AMD is really interested in chipsets to push their CPUs.

This is an aboutface from several years where AMD only produced a couple of chipset to get sales of CPUs rolling. Then as other companies rolled out their own chipsets for Athlon CPUs, AMD quietly stopped producing thier own. This made AMD dependant on other companies to help it sell it's CPUs.

With the purchase of ATI, AMD can now suppy chipsets for their own CPUs and have a hand at quality and featureset control. No longer will AMD be dependant on other companies the drive the success of their CPUs.

It is possible that ATI will no longer make chipsets for Intel CPUs. If so, then they will probably license future graphics technology to Intel. Intel is currently licensing the Crossfire technology from ATI, that's why upcoming Intel chipsets can support Crossfire mode.

It seems people are pissed off that Intel's chipset does not support SLI, but nVidia decided not to license that technology to Intel.


2. nVidia will continue to make chipsets for both AMD and Intel. Not everyone who will have an AMD will want to stick Crossfire mode only.


3. It is unlikely Intel will acquire nVidia in my opinion. Intel is not really in the gaming GPU side of the business. Their IGPs are really meant for businesses that do not require a powerful GPU for gaming. They are interested in cost effective solutions for their employees to do their work.

Since Intel produces their own chipsets, they don't need to acquire nVidia. Their chipsets have traditionally been pretty stable.

--------------------

I think nVidia will see increased competition for chipset and IGPs on the AMD front, but they will still have a presence. nVidia should still be able to thrive as a standalone company as long as they have a diversified product portfolio such as video chips for PDAs and cellphones.
July 24, 2006 2:49:30 PM

Quote:
3. dont think so, Intel doesnt really need nVidia
Did AMD need ATi? No.
July 24, 2006 2:53:28 PM

Quote:
For the stupid people around here I'll make it simple:

4 choices => 2 choices == bad for consumers ...


you are right....

I would like to see VIA make 64bit tiny form factor pc's, and not just 32 bit ones.... And hopefully the 'cell cpu' from sony/toshiba/IBM will become something.... Then we would have 4 competitors in the CPU market, instead or 2....
July 24, 2006 2:55:36 PM

AMD must see some synergistic benefits with the merger. As this appears to be AMD taking on a new line of business, not eating up competition, it is hard to say what the objectives are. AMD must see a way to leverage ATI's expertise, personnel, etc.
July 24, 2006 2:55:45 PM

Why no?
July 24, 2006 3:18:46 PM

I fully agree with you, Stranger. First off, die size would be an issue for integrated solutions. Secondly, (and I am not technically sound with that, so take it with a grain of salt), I agree with the graphics memory issue. If you integrate, would you have to share the system memory bus? Is that wide / fast enough? What about heat dissipation from these gigantic solutions? In summary, it appears highly unlikely.
July 24, 2006 3:34:34 PM

Quote:
i have said this on another thread and it is that i hope AMD still allow ATI to be a seprate company whilst still benefitting. if they try to make ATI their lapdog then the gfx cards may suffer as they will probably be more interested in chipsets.


I dont think it will happen cuz AMD said they don't plan on downsizing ATi at all if they do it'll be tiny, so basically ATi remains ATi they just gain access to what AMD can offer, as well as offloading some of there products to AMD Fabs which will save them money.
July 24, 2006 4:33:18 PM

And while they are at it they could include the memory and HDDs too. :p  would be fun installing those MotherB size chips which would make a Prescott look like Pluto (temp wise).

The biggest GPU maker in the PC market also makes chipsets (Well actually the chipset and GPU are integrated) and processors. There is a reason they haven’t put all 3 on one chip.
July 24, 2006 4:38:09 PM

Quote:

I dont think it will happen cuz AMD said they don't plan on downsizing ATi at all if they do it'll be tiny, so basically ATi remains ATi they just gain access to what AMD can offer, as well as offloading some of there products to AMD Fabs which will save them money.


Bingo!!! That would be good news. If ATI starts producing its GPUs on AMDs Fabs we could look forward to less power/heat consumption on graphics cards (one can only hope)

A bad thing would be if they reforcuse on the mobile and consumer electronics markets giving Nvidia and Intel almost total monopolies (I really do not wish that).
July 24, 2006 4:40:41 PM

Really don’t see how they can add functions without adding silicon 8O Maybe if you take something out ? :twisted:
July 24, 2006 5:43:36 PM

Amd does so much work with nvidia suprised that they did not try to buy them, but they are wrth more and would not sell i think. all the amd mobos with nvdia chipsets and sli wonder why they did this. Hopefully Ati still has a leg to stand on and hopefully they stay in Canada eh.
July 24, 2006 5:56:48 PM

Quote:
And what competition has been eliminated?

ATI still has to compete with Nvidia. AMD still has to compete with Intel. Its still Crossfire vs. SLI and K8 (later K8L) vs. Conroe.

So where exactly has competition disappeared? The only thing we'll see now is tighter integration between AMD and ATI products. But that doesn't mean we'll see an end in competition with Nvidia on the AMD side or an end in competition with ATI on the Intel side.

Unless Nvidia and Intel whine like little girls and go home.


The thing you are missing is AMD is going to integrate the GPU into its multi core CPUs eventually.... Intel will do the same thing also.... There will no longer be a graphic card need.... So NVidia needs to get merged with someone or die....

Yes chipsets will also get integrated into CPU....

I have been talking about system on a chip since this rumor started, but most people have not cought on to this.... They finally hinted at it in the press release:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/07/24/amd_acquires_ati/
Quote:
AMD hinted that ATI's expertise in graphics may enable graphics functions that are directly integrated into the processor: "In 2008 and beyond, AMD aims to move beyond current technological configurations to transform processing technologies, with silicon-specific platforms that integrate microprocessors and graphics processors


This is the post most of you don't understand and probably the crux of the whole merger buyout situation. With the capability to make quad core by next year and multi-core systems after, you have opened up the ability of putting the gpu on the chip. This will be the future, we won't have video cards anymore they will be combined with the cpu. I mean look, Tom's had the article about Intel putting 30+ cores or what ever into a single chip by possibly 2010. What if you put 8 of those 30 as gpu's? Not saying they would do this but if you take out the buss you cut out sli and crossfire speading up the transfer of data because it is all done in the chip instead of using a more limited PCIx solution.

What this means is that Nvidia would be in a world of hurt if it did not get paired up with Intel. It also means Intel better come up with a good graphics solution or AMD/ATI is going to hand them their $&#&. Does Intel buy out nvidia? Not necesarily but this has gotten very interesting and if AMD/ATI ends up the only source for gaming then it hurts the consumer more then anything.
July 24, 2006 6:16:30 PM

Quote:
The questions that I have are:
1. Will we be seeing a whole new line of Motherboards with ATI chipsets?
2. What is the future for Nvidia chipset Motherboards?
3. Is Intel going to turn around and buy Nvidia?


1. Surely, however, I believe the first thing we will see is 65nm Athlons much sooner than planned.
2. Not bright unless...
3. ...Intel buys Nvidia. Not that they want to but they may have to if AMD/ATI with their (probable) CPU/GPU link demonstrate a clear advantage in the gaming market.

On a side remark, Intel would have bought AMD, let alone nVidia, if they had believed for one second that the deal would go through :) 
July 24, 2006 6:23:09 PM

All i have to say about this merger is that AMD better do for Ati what they did for themselves vs Intel.

Ati needs to be cooler
Ati needs to get their content out in larger supply
Ati needs to beat nVidia
Ati needs to be cheaper

Ati just released SM3 with their new generation while nVidia has been an entire generation ahead? Welcome to 2004 Ati?
Ati is still entirely behind with it's crossfire platform and crossfire edition cards are overpriced compared to standard SLI capable cards.
Ati motherboards for AM2 socket are in very short supply. Not just in numbers, but models also.

Again, AMD better revamp Ati if they are going to get much of anything from this merger. Everyone is saying AMD will be getting their own chipsets and maybe GPU's on CPU's and whatever else, but it's going to be hell and high water if they can't crank anything out to begin with. Sure, Ati will have the AMD fabs to use, but what will that say about AMD and their time schedules? If AMD relies too heavily on Ati they're going to eat lots of dust. I think they should've left Ati alone and stayed with nVidia. Why fix something if it's not broken?

And something else i haven't seen posted: If AMD used 2.5 billion in shares to buy Ati, then someone has that much power over both AMD and Ati. Remember - owning a % of company shares gives you that much % in company control. Or at least company say...
July 24, 2006 6:41:40 PM

Quote:
am i the only one that realises that GPU's and CPU's are completely different. does anyone else know that 8 cpu's won't be as good as a GPU and that you could never fit a GPU on to the same die even with 45nm(i think)


What you say is true today, but in the near future may not be. That is what my point is.

Personally, I don't think this merger will go through regardless of the reasons. I expect Nvidia to file a lawsuit to block it. It gives ATI too much of an unfair advantage and is likely to put them out of business if it goes through.

Oh and by the way here is quote, AMD President Dirk Meyer also confirmed that in addition to multi-processor platforms, that "as we look towards ever finer manufacturing geometries we see opportunity to integrate CPU and GPU onto the same [die]."

You can read the whole article here

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3471
July 24, 2006 6:52:55 PM

Quote:
AMD hinted that ATI's expertise in graphics may enable graphics functions that are directly integrated into the processor: "In 2008 and beyond, AMD aims to move beyond current technological configurations to transform processing technologies, with silicon-specific platforms that integrate microprocessors and graphics processors


I wonder if that will be similar to the integrated memory controller.
July 24, 2006 6:54:18 PM

Quote:
nvidia go out of business, hardly. they have too big a business and it would never happen casue of compettion rules.

unless AMD freezes nvidia out i can't see them blocking it. nvidia know the score, business is business.


That is why I say expect a challenge from NVidia to this merger deal.

Because if Intel and AMD do end up with the capability to combine GPU's and CPU's on one die that is exactly what would happen, Nvidia would be toast.
July 24, 2006 7:11:02 PM

Quote:
3. dont think so, Intel doesnt really need nVidia
Did AMD need ATi? No.

I have a wait-and-see attitude about this. Maybe they have something up their sleeve, maybe not. If the partnership increases AMD's leverage in mobo/chipest architecture, it could be an advantage. If something new is planned for GPU development, it could be an advantage. This could be about server mobo development, dunno... Again, wait and see since my crystal ball keeps popping up with Core 2 Duo logos and no AMD hints.
July 24, 2006 7:12:27 PM

One point everyone seems to overlook is that chipsets are sold to mobo manufactures, not Intel or AMD (Intel rolls their own for their boards anyway). I don't see how the merger should trigger the cessation of Nvidia or ATI chipsets for either platform.

Gotta wonder what the gang at Via is thinking tho.. :evil: 
July 24, 2006 7:20:04 PM

Quote:
Gotta wonder what the gang at Via is thinking tho.. :evil: 

They're thinking, "hmmm, maybe the fish market is something to look into"
July 24, 2006 7:26:33 PM

Quote:
For the stupid people around here I'll make it simple:

4 choices => 2 choices == bad for consumers ...


hmm...

AMD running nVidia Chipset with an ATI or nVidia card
AMD running ATI Chipset with an nVidia or ATI card

Intel running an ATI chipset using an ATI or nVidia card
Intel running an Intel chipset using an ATI or nvidia card
Intel running an nVidia chipset using an ATI or nVidia card

Granted since this merger the Intel's running on an ATI chipset may not be possible, but I still see a lot more than 2 choices, perhaps I'm wrong
July 24, 2006 7:45:40 PM

I can't wait to see what happens though.

I'm excited to see what AMD will be able to come with with an "in-house" chipset maker. I'm also excited to see what AMD plans to come out with, perhaps something like a PPU connected to the CPU via their hyper link + a revamped crossfire or something like that...

I don't know why people are so down about this? I see it as a good thing, new products! :) 
July 24, 2006 7:51:02 PM

Quote:
gpu's and chipsets being intergrated into cpu's. no chance in the home consumer market. seriously those solutions will not provide the performance IMO.

the server and business market however maybe. right now they don't need much of a GPU so it would make sense. then again for low price simple to use notebooks that idea may go far as the space savig and perhaps even power would justify it.


You don't think a 2ghz ATI GPU inside an AMD multicore CPU connected through Hypertransport will outperform todays ATI 500mhz(or whatever they are) GPU connected through the PCI-E socket....

I will let you take that back.... You couldn't be more wrong!!!!

Dude, you seriously need to shut up. You think that it's that easy to combine those two? See how huge the GFX card is? Why it has to be that big if they can (assumably) reduce it to be smaller? And you said it can be integrated into a small cpu? GFX card basically a computer inside itself, with its own processor (graphics processor), memory (GDDR), and motherboard. What you said is like you are dreaming for putting a giant elephant into a small rat hole. If the most brilliant engineers in the world cannot do that, you sure the heck cannot either. Yea sure, and then bandwidth of CPU and GPU will jammed up because they are in such a small space. Then the heat issue, within itself, the GFX already released an insane amount of heat, stick that with a monster CPU, then you got a combination of french fries.

Think before said something that dumb, it's computer techonology, it's not 1+1 is 2. If you understand a bit more about the history of the GPU, then you know why people had to create a dedicated GPU. Remember the time when you ran Win 3.1 without any gpu? Because CPU basically does 3 jobs: processing, rendering graphics, and calculating physics. Now, people create the GPU, and are doing the PPU because there is nothing on earth can do 3 jobs at a time and still outperforms the dedicated three units.
July 24, 2006 7:56:38 PM

haha, easier said then done.

now all we need is amd,asus mobos,ati gets together and make us all happy where there intergrate graphics lol!
July 24, 2006 7:57:53 PM

3) No intel wont buy Nvidia...they had a chance to buy Nvidia last year but they decided to invest into communications.
July 24, 2006 7:59:02 PM

HEHE Via bought Cyrix and no one noticed :lol: 

Edit: OK, in all fairness they build for the minimalists.
July 24, 2006 8:01:12 PM

In the TGdaily article, AMD CEO said the merger between ATI and AMD is for developing and reducing cost purpose, because AMD doesnt have the resource to develop the chipset so everytime it wants to come up with a product, it has to wait for 4 more companies to come up with solution. Also, the administration cost, merger between companies is basically serve the task. Because now they can cut a bunch of redundant positions inside the companies. See Segate and Maxtor? They are still producing their own product, but now they work together, that's all it is. Nobody stupid enough to erase their companies name and their specialty from the map. There will still be an ATI who creates awesome GFX card, and an AMD create rocking solid CPU to compete against Intel. The difference is that AMD now can reduce its product cycle, comes up with new products faster because they dont have to rely on 4 different companies to produce chipsets, and have more money for R&D folks. So you idiots stop saying that there will be just Nvidia on the GFX card market and the price will be high.
July 24, 2006 8:04:42 PM

if amd had the money they could kill intel if they wanted to.

intel = big brother who lets little brother have a little glory for a couple of years.

amd = little brother who doesnt like big bully brother and needs money to make big brother realize i can become bigger than you.

thats how i would compare them. funny if intel and amd were brothers in real life. i wonder what the dad would pick up as a processor.
July 24, 2006 8:11:18 PM

Quote:
gpu's and chipsets being intergrated into cpu's. no chance in the home consumer market. seriously those solutions will not provide the performance IMO.

the server and business market however maybe. right now they don't need much of a GPU so it would make sense. then again for low price simple to use notebooks that idea may go far as the space savig and perhaps even power would justify it.


You don't think a 2ghz ATI GPU inside an AMD multicore CPU connected through Hypertransport will outperform todays ATI 500mhz(or whatever they are) GPU connected through the PCI-E socket....

I will let you take that back.... You couldn't be more wrong!!!!

Dude, you seriously need to shut up. You think that it's that easy to combine those two? See how huge the GFX card is? Why it has to be that big if they can (assumably) reduce it to be smaller? And you said it can be integrated into a small cpu? GFX card basically a computer inside itself, with its own processor (graphics processor), memory (GDDR), and motherboard. What you said is like you are dreaming for putting a giant elephant into a small rat hole. If the most brilliant engineers in the world cannot do that, you sure the heck cannot either. Yea sure, and then bandwidth of CPU and GPU will jammed up because they are in such a small space. Then the heat issue, within itself, the GFX already released an insane amount of heat, stick that with a monster CPU, then you got a combination of french fries.

Think before said something that dumb, it's computer techonology, it's not 1+1 is 2. If you understand a bit more about the history of the GPU, then you know why people had to create a dedicated GPU. Remember the time when you ran Win 3.1 without any gpu? Because CPU basically does 3 jobs: processing, rendering graphics, and calculating physics. Now, people create the GPU, and are doing the PPU because there is nothing on earth can do 3 jobs at a time and still outperforms the dedicated three units.

Make sure you forward this on to the President of AMD. He must be stupid too. Like I said it was from his mouth, they plan on combining the CPU and GPU down the road.
July 24, 2006 8:12:46 PM

Quote:
gpu's and chipsets being intergrated into cpu's. no chance in the home consumer market. seriously those solutions will not provide the performance IMO.

the server and business market however maybe. right now they don't need much of a GPU so it would make sense. then again for low price simple to use notebooks that idea may go far as the space savig and perhaps even power would justify it.


You don't think a 2ghz ATI GPU inside an AMD multicore CPU connected through Hypertransport will outperform todays ATI 500mhz(or whatever they are) GPU connected through the PCI-E socket....

I will let you take that back.... You couldn't be more wrong!!!!

Dude, you seriously need to shut up. You think that it's that easy to combine those two? See how huge the GFX card is? Why it has to be that big if they can (assumably) reduce it to be smaller? And you said it can be integrated into a small cpu? GFX card basically a computer inside itself, with its own processor (graphics processor), memory (GDDR), and motherboard. What you said is like you are dreaming for putting a giant elephant into a small rat hole. If the most brilliant engineers in the world cannot do that, you sure the heck cannot either. Yea sure, and then bandwidth of CPU and GPU will jammed up because they are in such a small space. Then the heat issue, within itself, the GFX already released an insane amount of heat, stick that with a monster CPU, then you got a combination of french fries.

Think before said something that dumb, it's computer techonology, it's not 1+1 is 2. If you understand a bit more about the history of the GPU, then you know why people had to create a dedicated GPU. Remember the time when you ran Win 3.1 without any gpu? Because CPU basically does 3 jobs: processing, rendering graphics, and calculating physics. Now, people create the GPU, and are doing the PPU because there is nothing on earth can do 3 jobs at a time and still outperforms the dedicated three units.

Make sure you forward this on to the President of AMD. He must be stupid too. Like I said it was from his mouth, they plan on combining the CPU and GPU down the road.

Read the damn thing, it a GPU and CPU with shared cache, not stick two into ones, comepletely different. Also, ATI CEO said that the finer manufacturing process (45nm or what he doesnt indicate) he SEE OPPORTUNITY in order to do that. Right, AMD and ATI now just move to 65nm, you can dream on about that.
July 24, 2006 8:15:22 PM

intergrated cache i would call that. hopefully doesnt turn out as bad as intergrated graphics.
July 24, 2006 8:18:40 PM

Exactly, because shared cache utilize the GPU and CPU, so they dont have redundant unit, therefore cut cost. It's like your house have 4 bathroom before just for you (but you never used the other three), now you share with more people, it utilizes the effectiveness of three redundant units. Now AMD and ATI dont have to make 4mb cache for each unit that normal users never come close to use all of it. They can share, not two into one.
July 24, 2006 8:19:53 PM

Quote:
gpu's and chipsets being intergrated into cpu's. no chance in the home consumer market. seriously those solutions will not provide the performance IMO.

the server and business market however maybe. right now they don't need much of a GPU so it would make sense. then again for low price simple to use notebooks that idea may go far as the space savig and perhaps even power would justify it.


You don't think a 2ghz ATI GPU inside an AMD multicore CPU connected through Hypertransport will outperform todays ATI 500mhz(or whatever they are) GPU connected through the PCI-E socket....

I will let you take that back.... You couldn't be more wrong!!!!

Dude, you seriously need to shut up. You think that it's that easy to combine those two? See how huge the GFX card is? Why it has to be that big if they can (assumably) reduce it to be smaller? And you said it can be integrated into a small cpu? GFX card basically a computer inside itself, with its own processor (graphics processor), memory (GDDR), and motherboard. What you said is like you are dreaming for putting a giant elephant into a small rat hole. If the most brilliant engineers in the world cannot do that, you sure the heck cannot either. Yea sure, and then bandwidth of CPU and GPU will jammed up because they are in such a small space. Then the heat issue, within itself, the GFX already released an insane amount of heat, stick that with a monster CPU, then you got a combination of french fries.

Think before said something that dumb, it's computer techonology, it's not 1+1 is 2. If you understand a bit more about the history of the GPU, then you know why people had to create a dedicated GPU. Remember the time when you ran Win 3.1 without any gpu? Because CPU basically does 3 jobs: processing, rendering graphics, and calculating physics. Now, people create the GPU, and are doing the PPU because there is nothing on earth can do 3 jobs at a time and still outperforms the dedicated three units.
You're right in the sense that we will never see high end graphics embedded within a CPU, just as we will never see high end embedded audio on a motherboard. However, in areas where there are size or budget constraints, a CPU/GPU may be a viable option. I say this because by the time this idea is fully realized (Yes, I believe it will happen), the cheapest CPUs will likely have 4+ cores. By creating or altering an OS to use one of these spare cores to perform video calculations, one could probably squeeze enough functionality out of said core to render a basic GUI, where a user could perform simple tasks such as checking e-mail and managing files, etc. There will never be a high end GPU on a CPU without major changes in design and manufacturing, but in cases where such power is not needed, a CPU/GPU is a viable idea.

Have you ever heard of AMD's 50x15 initiative? It's a program to provide affordable internet service to 50% of the world by 2015. I think it's possible for AMD to distribute these cheap computers armed with CPU/GPU units to help realize this goal. Also, I think tablet PCs, notebooks, and other portable electronics could benefit from a CPU/GPU.

Oh well, it's just a thought. It will be several (Probably 5+) years before any computer powered by something like a CPU/GPU is ready and marketable. But, the sheer idea of it is not a bogus thought, and I believe there is a market for it, whether it has revealed itself or not.
July 24, 2006 8:19:57 PM

Quote:
i thought via was bougfht by nvida sometime ago or am i thinking of a different company like uli.


Could you be thinking 3dfx?

To answer your earlier question, no, you're not the only one. And the idea of system on a chip seems asinine to me. AMD seems to be moving in kind of an opposite direction, if I understood from (admittedly cursory) look at the ideas for the next platform, where they intimated that they were going to connect supplementary co-processors by hypertransport or some such. That is certainly not put-everything-on-one-die approach.

Besides, latest trend has been about off-loading the cpu, e.g. physx - whatever you may think of it - etc. Besides, with the speeds of the chips, the distance of the mobo traces to other components - most particularly memory - start playing an important role, and I'd like to see a) how many pins you'd need for a combined CPU / GPU b) how you would lay out / trace all that mess on a board. That is besides die size issues, and yes, I think even with a 45 nm process, or even 32nm. And while the process shrinks, the CPU components will grow in complexity / size. Thirdly, it would be one expensive mofo, and what would you do if the GPU part went bad, and CPU was fine, go pay another $1,000 or so? I think you can keep going with the arguments here. Okay, can't resist one more. Did you read the recent state of the graphics union? How about system power requirement of 320 or so watt, now on one die? The suckers get hot even at the current 115-130 tdp. I'd love to see that heatsink.

I think the "crux" of the merger is the fact that AMD was starved for a solid reliable chipset support, which is what this merger provides. They went after the most reasonable way of obtaining that - so it's, to me, more of a vertical integration move than anything else. So that they can finally deliver platforms, rather than processors, to the now growing customer base, without having to rely on partners and the inevitable delays and fingerpointing that causes.

It will be interesting, however, to watch how the whole thing plays out, since nVidia has been one of the premier AMD platforms, and I wonder if this alliance will change anything in that regard. Case in point, I believe I read somewhere that nForce, as a chipset, was much more amenable to AMD processors than Intel.
!