While I agree that a Fusion-esque APU is the future, discrete graphics cards won't be disappearing for a long time, as long as there are gamers that will buy them and they perform better than whatever is integrated. I think the Inquirer is exaggerating things a bit here.
While I agree that a Fusion-esque APU is the future, discrete graphics cards won't be disappearing for a long time, as long as there are gamers that will buy them and they perform better than whatever is integrated. I think the Inquirer is exaggerating things a bit here.
nVidia is far from dead.
you are assuming that fusion-type performance will not be able to compete with discrete at some point
Because INTEL is going balls out with its intergrated GPU/CPU core....
Nvidia better look to change its business model
Hopefully it's better then the ast GPU Intel released. I mean they're talking about 16x faster than G80.
I'd ike o see how they manage it considerng the power reqs for G80/R600.
They are saying it will be x86 "mini-CPUs" like Cell or XBox360 CPU. It will be interesing to see, but hopefully no one really thinks nVidia can be beat.
R700 is already set to be modular and nVidia will undoubtedly want to really out-distance Intel after this announcement. And considerng the time between G70 and G80, Intel will NEVER catch up.
if anything it'll be like ATi where ntel releases a chip that's faster than nVidia current and nVidia releases a new monster that lows the competitin away.
nVidia has the most experience in 3D GPUs and Intel - no matter the money they throw at it - will not be able to make up the 10+ year headstart.
sure it sounds like a monster, but how well will it really push the pixels? who knows. it sounds like it will be one helluva server add on type chip not a gpu.
Discrete graphics have a long life ahead of them. I don't see discrete graphics going away because there is a foreseeable demand for the sheer power they put out as long as games and video gets more realistic/advanced. When we reach the point where that isn't possible and all that is left it to shrink stuff then, yes maybe Nvidia will be "in trouble" but I doubt they are that stupid. If anything, I bet nvidia helps lead us into the next revoltuion with VR or something like that.
Let's not get all bent out of shape at something that is 7+ years off in the future. 8O
I dont think AMD had to buy ATI to survive, but rather ATI needed to be bought in order for ATI to survive or at least live on under another name (AMD?).
Anyways, I think AMD has long been working on this, even before purchasing ATI, but needed a major kick in the butt in the form of ATI's engineers to keep up with what they know Intel has been secretly working on.
Discrete graphics have a long life ahead of them. I don't see discrete graphics going away because there is a foreseeable demand for the sheer power they put out as long as games and video gets more realistic/advanced. When we reach the point where that isn't possible and all that is left it to shrink stuff then, yes maybe Nvidia will be "in trouble" but I doubt they are that stupid. If anything, I bet nvidia helps lead us into the next revoltuion with VR or something like that.
Let's not get all bent out of shape at something that is 7+ years off in the future. 8O
but hence the thread title... AMD did what it had to do early....to be viable in 7 years...
Unless there is a paradigm shift in graphics processing that I'm completely missing, I don't see how from a raw performance perspective a GPU could compete while integrated into a CPU. You'd run into heat issues just like cramming two dual-cores onto one die and then trying to run at previous frequencies (almost twice the heat in the same socket space). I don't see this changing with a more advanced litho node as long as the discrete card doesn't seriously trail the CPU process.
However, I do see clearly some power efficiency, component-retasking, and manufacturing advantages from an integrated GPU that would make it suitable for budget and low-power systems.
Upon reading this I have concluded that it is not outside the realm of possiblility for intel to become a powerhouse in graphics. With the expertise of 3D Labs engineers and intels very deep R&D pockets, it would be very foolhardy to become complacent about intel becoming a player in the GPU market. This event was probably what triggered the eventual merger of AMD/ATI.
I wonder how much it cost intel to obtain this level of graphics expertise? I don't know, but I bet it was alot less than 5 billion dollars.
Upon reading this I have concluded that it is not outside the realm of possiblility for intel to become a powerhouse in graphics. With the expertise of 3D Labs engineers and intels very deep R&D pockets, it would be very foolhardy to become complacent about intel becoming a player in the GPU market. This event was probably what triggered the eventual merger of AMD/ATI.
I wonder how much it cost intel to obtain this level of graphics expertise? I don't know, but I bet it was alot less than 5 billion dollars.
Perhaps, but they also don't get a suite of GPUs for every segment. Intel better look out because nVidia is WAAAAAAYYYYYY ahead. nVidia is already working on a GPGPU. Yes, Intel has deep pockets but 3D Labs is known for OpenGL pro cards. I doubt they will catch nVidia.
Employees by themselves won't do it and if they(employees) steal manuf or trade secrets, Intel can be prosecuted.
They will never REALLY catch nVidia or even ATi.
That won´t do Nvidia any good though. If intel decided to go that route (and intel isn´t quite the nice guy if it comes to laws and morals) they will damage Nvidia to a degree that will make it worth it for them paying any fine. The worst case scenario would be they compete with nv, devalue them by stealing their tech and then buy them... 8O
True. I know the difference, just showing how large nV is. There are a number of levels of cooperation, they all have their own special meaning. Why we need names for them all, I don't know. It boils down to one thing: sharing information/resources.
Personally, I think AMD would have been better served by merging with nVidia -- the buy-out option for ATI left them a little cash starved, and nVidia was a bit more profitable than ATI was over time...
But, water under the bridge --- the reasons why though are sane, this is the direction the industry is heading.... you just don't plop out 5 billion bucks on a whim --- there is longer term strategy going on here and it was not done on the idea "hey, let's see if we can merge a GPU/CPU" , it was most definitely done in order to secure the necessary resources to be competitive in the future.
nVidia, while reaping some benefit now, will be in some trouble I suspect in the long term.... just my hunch anyway.
So, I will speculate that nVidia will eventually buy the company with x86-license, VIA.
