AMD Fusion may slip into the next decade

[Lacostiade]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20070116234458.html

Now AMD has no advantage over Intel in terms of CPU-GPU integration, if u remember when Fusion was first announced, many people said that AMD will have a 2 year advantage over intel in Fusion chips, Intel's Gesher (wich is rumoured to have an integrated GPU) is in 2010, while AMD's Fusion is in late 2009. Stupid AMD (no offense). I just wish nvidia releases a Fusion chip before AMD or Intel and give these two companies a hard time.

 

[ajfink]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20070116234458.html

Now AMD has no advantage over Intel in terms of CPU-GPU integration, if u remember when Fusion was first announced, many people said that AMD will have a 2 year advantage over intel in Fusion chips, Intel's Gesher (wich is rumoured to have an integrated GPU) is in 2010, while AMD's Fusion is in late 2009. Stupid AMD (no offense). I just wish nvidia releases a Fusion chip before AMD or Intel and give these two companies a hard time.

Intel has had a graphics department for years and far more money for R&D, did you really expect them to fall behind in this?

 

[Lacostiade]

perhaps AMD made that delay because they are developing something cool which they havent still announced, like a socketed GPU. I am a Fusion fanboy and i read some interviews with Phil and others. Some say late 2008/early 2009 while some say late 2009\early 2010

 

[gman01]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20070116234458.html

Now AMD has no advantage over Intel in terms of CPU-GPU integration, if u remember when Fusion was first announced, many people said that AMD will have a 2 year advantage over intel in Fusion chips, Intel's Gesher (wich is rumoured to have an integrated GPU) is in 2010, while AMD's Fusion is in late 2009. Stupid AMD (no offense). I just wish nvidia releases a Fusion chip before AMD or Intel and give these two companies a hard time.

Intel has had a graphics department for years and far more money for R&D, did you really expect them to fall behind in this?

intel will just glue a gpu to a cpu if they fall behind....

 

[qcmadness]

Intel has had a graphics department for years and far more money for R&D, did you really expect them to fall behind in this?

If only money is the determining factor, how can a G965 fall behind RS480 and Crush-51?

 

[Lacostiade]

intel's mistake in the G965 was focusing on shader ops other than pixel fillrate. IMO the reason for delay is that AMD couldnt start serious Fusion design until 2007, it would take two years to design, and one year to prototype, test and debug.

 

[captaincharisma]

If intel gets into the bpu/GPU chip like AMD does right now it doesn't look like they will stand a chance. Intel has there own grphic department but they are not in the same league as Nvidia and AMD/ATI. So with the way things look right now AMD fusion chip would be the clear winner for this. but this is 2 to 3 years down the road mind you

 

[32nano_meter]

Intel is working on a new graphics chip. Project name is rumored to be Larabee.

 

[heartview]

I think the only two things that hold Intel back from pushing a lot harder into the GPU market is antitrust crap and profit margins. Intel just makes a lot more money for CPU's than they do chipsets, and card makers have even lower margins in most cases (except possibly at the very high end).

 

[turpit]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20070116234458.html

Now AMD has no advantage over Intel in terms of CPU-GPU integration, if u remember when Fusion was first announced, many people said that AMD will have a 2 year advantage over intel in Fusion chips, Intel's Gesher (wich is rumoured to have an integrated GPU) is in 2010, while AMD's Fusion is in late 2009. Stupid AMD (no offense). I just wish nvidia releases a Fusion chip before AMD or Intel and give these two companies a hard time.

Intel has had a graphics department for years and far more money for R&D, did you really expect them to fall behind in this?

intel will just glue a gpu to a cpu if they fall behind....


ROFLMAO

You mean like AMD "glued" 2 mobos together to come up with a quad core aka QFX??? :tongue:

 

[clairvoyant129]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20070116234458.html

Now AMD has no advantage over Intel in terms of CPU-GPU integration, if u remember when Fusion was first announced, many people said that AMD will have a 2 year advantage over intel in Fusion chips, Intel's Gesher (wich is rumoured to have an integrated GPU) is in 2010, while AMD's Fusion is in late 2009. Stupid AMD (no offense). I just wish nvidia releases a Fusion chip before AMD or Intel and give these two companies a hard time.

Intel has had a graphics department for years and far more money for R&D, did you really expect them to fall behind in this?

intel will just glue a gpu to a cpu if they fall behind....


That's a good one, what do you call "Quad Garbage FX?"

Anyway, I never took the AMD's Fusion seriously.

 

[flasher702]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20070116234458.html

Now AMD has no advantage over Intel in terms of CPU-GPU integration, if u remember when Fusion was first announced, many people said that AMD will have a 2 year advantage over intel in Fusion chips, Intel's Gesher (wich is rumoured to have an integrated GPU) is in 2010, while AMD's Fusion is in late 2009. Stupid AMD (no offense). I just wish nvidia releases a Fusion chip before AMD or Intel and give these two companies a hard time.

Intel has had a graphics department for years and far more money for R&D, did you really expect them to fall behind in this?

intel will just glue a gpu to a cpu if they fall behind....

that made me LOL xD

 

[flasher702]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20070116234458.html

Now AMD has no advantage over Intel in terms of CPU-GPU integration, if u remember when Fusion was first announced, many people said that AMD will have a 2 year advantage over intel in Fusion chips, Intel's Gesher (wich is rumoured to have an integrated GPU) is in 2010, while AMD's Fusion is in late 2009. Stupid AMD (no offense). I just wish nvidia releases a Fusion chip before AMD or Intel and give these two companies a hard time.

Intel has had a graphics department for years and far more money for R&D, did you really expect them to fall behind in this?

intel will just glue a gpu to a cpu if they fall behind....

Fusion will be exactly the same thing.

Everything I've heard about Fusion has been "heterogenious multi core", did I miss something important? I suppose they could just put them both on one chip for the first generation or something, but it doesn't seem like their style. They don't have a lot of production capacity to mess around with glueing things together I thought.

 

[lordaardvark2]

dammit why does amd keep slipping behind in my eyes? i want to see them come out with something amazing (not that i'm a fanboy or anything), but in this intel-dominated market where c2d is lord, jeeze, amd needs a major silver bullet.

i'm hoping that they pull something out of their asses, something not on their "roadmap" or w/e, they're just like, "here, have this $50 16-core proc."

unfortunately i don't really think that'll happen.

 

[flasher702]

Anyway, I never took the AMD's Fusion seriously.

It seems like a much better idea than an 80core CPU to me.


I haven't heard anything about nVidia making CPUs. I would think VIA is probably closer to being able to do this than nVidia. Both companies make IGPs, but Via also makes CPUs.

I hope that Fusion does come though, and doesn't sux. If I'm going to be forced to buy multi-core I want my extra cores to actually do something!

 

[flasher702]

dammit why does amd keep slipping behind in my eyes? i want to see them come out with something amazing (not that i'm a fanboy or anything), but in this intel-dominated market where c2d is lord, jeeze, amd needs a major silver bullet.

i'm hoping that they pull something out of their asses, something not on their "roadmap" or w/e, they're just like, "here, have this $50 16-core proc."

unfortunately i don't really think that'll happen.

Eh, if you can manage to ignore the intel fanboys long enough you can see that there are still a few niches left to AMD. They are few and slim though Lack of choice makes me uncomfortable also.

 

[lordaardvark2]

yeah, i was thinking of going 939 b/c its so frikkin cheap, and i'm a bottom-feeder of tech, but i am worried about amd's flagship business 'n stuff. if their top line fails, then eventually their bottom line/old stuff will too. i mean i'm not real worried, i just wanna see that silver bullet....!

 

[BaronMatrix]

Intel is working on a new graphics chip. Project name is rumored to be Larabee.

Actually I believe Larabee is the company name. There was a story about it on The Reg right when the DOJ subpoenaed nVidia and ATi.

 

[sonoran63]

Vara says we might see "different flavors" of quad-core chips that have "more complex cores along with simpler cores."

Vara is with Intel R&D.

It would be rather myopic to believe that in a multi-core world, all cores would always be carbon copies of one another. There could be cores that rock at integer math, cores for floating point, cores for streaming instructions, cores for graphics processing. If you really think about it, the only reason GPU's ever came into being was because general purpose CPU's couldn't handle the graphics processing workload. I could easily imagine a day when the GPU is just a subcomponent of the CPU, not something you have to go buy separately.

 

[ZozZoz]

Meh, who cares really if it's Sis, S3 or Matrox, or *gasp* Transmeta.
Its not like you guys are gonna step away from discrete graphics solutions, or are you?

I just can't picture this: How do you fuse a GPU and a CPU and hit the right spot?
There's people who need high-powered CPUs but do fine with an x300 kinda card because they don't game. There's the ones who need both, and the ones that just surf the net. And how big is the product variety going to be?
"Yeah..I'll have a C8D F9800 and radeon z2500xtx combo please"...

 

[jingles98]

LOL

Do they come in SLi?

 

[Lacostiade]

Meh, who cares really if it's Sis, S3 or Matrox, or *gasp* Transmeta.
Its not like you guys are gonna step away from discrete graphics solutions, or are you?

I just can't picture this: How do you fuse a GPU and a CPU and hit the right spot?
There's people who need high-powered CPUs but do fine with an x300 kinda card because they don't game. There's the ones who need both, and the ones that just surf the net. And how big is the product variety going to be?
"Yeah..I'll have a C8D F9800 and radeon z2500xtx combo please"...

Having the CPU next to the GPU also helps increasing bandwidth. This increase in badnwidth can help developers make more realistic games.

http://www.graphicshardware.org/presentations/pharr-keynote-gh06.pdf

this tells you why CPU GPU integration is necessary.

 

[xpresso]

AMD has been falling behind on most promises, not surprising here. The process technology needs to produce a high performance Fusion chip and keep yields high require 45 nm or even 32 nm circuitry due to the monstrous size of such a chip. Let AMD work 65 nm and then let them talk about Fusion. We are in 2007 and AMD 65 nm is paper lunch still. You think AMD has the bandwidth to make fusion happen before 2010? I am not talking prototype, I am talking volume production.

Fusion can happen only if:
1. IBM produces a working 45 nm by 2008. IBM 65 nm is AWOL. We know AMD process R&D is a joke. AMD is on its path to become fabless
2. Immersion lithography is much improved and production worthy at high yields
3. AMD makes money on 65 nm investment, again where is 65 nm Hector?
4. Forget all the above, AMD will work with a top foundry to make Fusion. Even then, Fusion will be delegated to entry level desktop and notebook PC's.

 

[geralt]

AMD process appears to be less advanced than IBM's process. 65nm Cell can reach 5 and more GHz while AMD is stuck at 3GHz.
Based on IBM's problems with Cell yields one can assume that IBM process is more advanced delivering higher performance transistors while AMD process is focusing on higher yields in expanse of performance.
Unless, this is only a smoke and mirrors and K8L will clock at 5GHz 8)
and totally kill Intel.

 

[gman01]

dammit why does amd keep slipping behind in my eyes? i want to see them come out with something amazing (not that i'm a fanboy or anything), but in this intel-dominated market where c2d is lord, jeeze, amd needs a major silver bullet.

i'm hoping that they pull something out of their asses, something not on their "roadmap" or w/e, they're just like, "here, have this $50 16-core proc."

unfortunately i don't really think that'll happen.

is AMD K10 still under developement? OR are they going with an APU next?