CPU & GPU - should be hybrided or continue???

I dont see how cpu/gpu hybridding is avoidable. Cpus just cant get it done for graphics applications, which are primarily parallel, where the gpu reigns supreme.
Problem is, most graphics encoding isnt singularly just parallel, and contains many serial strings, where the cpu riegns supreme.
Having a hybrid doing both is the way to go. While today we see cpus as generally being good enough for the average Joe, Average Joe is missing out on many things visual, simply because of cpu limitations, and gpgpus infancy.
Combining the 2 together eliminates the needs of special prgrams that cost more money, or having both gpu with stream or cuda capability and a decent cpu in their computers. So, as computation needs go, the market has reached somewhat of a plateau, whereas, the visual opportunities are still fairly young, not matured, and has a much wider growth potential. Im all for it obviously

Hmmm.... I agree with you but i ready a lots of mags about CPU, GPU and Computering and what they all said is the Future of Computering is DARK!!!

With that kinda of point, i do not agree with it.

Lets see a example: Last year, Geogre Lucas said that the computering should be bad in the next few years (as the economic crisis started to began slowly) when he's game titled Star Wars, the force unleashed in the 2008's Q1 and only available in console platforms.

After two Q's, they are announcing the new game called star wars, the old republic in the PC platform first than the consoles.

What we can summaries is the computering of the future still insight with the Semiconductor factories still kept pushing on.

For now, i still developing the Thermal Heat on the GPU surface. What i tried to ofter to the market is high performance with low prices. Just like between Intel and AMD.

I just post some Question for you guys to me some idea, i hope any answer should be appropriate or overwhelming ( e.g. like overclocking, liquid nitrogen or something related ).

1. Should a bus ( hardware term )
a. increases its core clock and downcreases its RAM clock
b. increases its RAM clock and downcreases its core clock

2. Should a CPU
a. increases it frequency and downcreases its core clock and increase its multiplier
b. increases it frequency and increases its core clock and downcrease its multiplier

Which is more stable for Question 2???

3. Should the concept of GPU introcude intro low profile users??? ( the users which uses less the 2.0Ghz of frequency??? ) If yes or no, pls write your point of view.

4. Should the GPU to be introduce powered controlled phases??? If yes or no, pls write your point of view.

5. Should the GPU market to be flexible in hardware terms ( e.g. like spare parts which can change ) ??? If yes or no, pls write your point of view.

6. What is important, the price vs performance or the power usage vs performance. Pls give comments.

7. Finally, what do you will about the future of computering. Pls any give comments.

Only just this 7 question for you guys to answer that will help me improve my research.

Thank you for all your corporation. Just in case anything you can email me at:

Nathan_8756@yahoo.com or
Nathan.12.12.14.12@gmail.com

I am staying in Penang, Malaysia where the Intel and AMD processsor's meets and assemble their last packing in the factory but i don't know where the hxll the factory is..... lol.

3. Skynet
4. Drums

Perhaps we should not make the same mistake again.... no drums. And no banjo.

When Nvidia can make a chip that does not die within a couple of years (just had to reflow my 8800gtx yet again) then maybe the hybrid will be a good idea.

Untill then i rather like the fact that if one component dies i can replace it relatively easily or with something cheap just to get things running again meantime.

Remember all the problems Nvidia had with the 6 series mobile GPU's overheating and then dieing due to poor internal solder? And now it seems that after 2 years roughly of use the G80 series is having much the same problem.
(Not picking on nvidia, seen the same problems with Ati over the years + I have a Nvidia card atm)

When oversights like a simple quality manufacturing process are sorted then i'll consider hybrid gpu/cpu a good idea

Oh, and 6: Cave paintings / pictographs haha.

Or, to put it more simply, just more of the same crap from Intel

If the sweet spot for low profile users is the GPU core case, why the NVIDIA and ATI don't take the full advantage??? Instead of this, Intel's were very comfortable to make use their low profile graphics into netbooks or low profile notebooks.

The reason is due to not much people knows such a "GPU thing" inside their computer expect for whose who knows. What they thought only is that the Intel is the only manufacturer and even the worst is they mixed up with the chipset manufacturer with the computer manufacturer.

For example my uncle, when he sees a computer, what will he replies???

a. The brand of that computer or
b. The manufacturer of the chipset on that computer



If you guess b., you are corrected. As i said, some people do mixed up with the chipset manufacturer with the computer manufacturer. What they think is the Intel is the computer makers not the brands.

If for me, the first to do while i am promoting my GPU card is to be educate the users in the market. At lease this will make them to know what is a GPU and its function is for rendering graphics.

If ( only if ) this kinda of method does work, why the semiconductors like Intel and AMD never does like this as the companies had their public relations on their team.

Exactly. I dislike almost anything from intel that's not a cpu...

@TechnologyCoordinator

Ummm, kind of missed a lot there. Those are terrible ideas for netbooks and servers. Why do you need to create more heat in the same place and deter performance where it is needed? Servers aren't already bogged down enough? Netbooks aren't slow enough for people already? Intensive graphics aren't needed anyway... It sounded more like a marketing scheme to cut costs of production since the joining of the cpu/gpu companies. In no way is this going to benefit any computer user.

I can only see them creating something strictly for gamers with written software designed for it. This isn't a bad idea, but this is not going to happen as they can hardly keep up with what they have now. And progression in the graming graphics area has been as slow as it's ever been.

I wouldve, but I took this post off

Personally, I don't see the hyprid model ever going beyond AGP's.

CPU's operate on a small bus width (64-bit, if that), limited cache, but a high clock speed to compensate. So even if only a limited amount of data can be transferred at one time, the higher clock rate balances out the limited bus width.

GPU's operate at a lower clock speed (~900Mhz average), but have a much larger data bus (256 or 512 bit), and a much, much larger cache (512MB+ these days). And thanks to PCI-E's design, even these can continue to be bumped up with relative ease.

I simply do not think that CPU architecture, as it exists now, could ever handle the load of calculating graphics at any reasonable speed (thanks in part to heat issues beyond 3GHz) without bottlenecking the rest of the system in the process. Likewise, I don't believe the PCI-E lane could ever be pumped up high enough to provide the speeds that current CPU architecture requires. Hence, the status quo.

Current cpu speeds are being held back by the non dev of smaller cores. The focus is no longer there. Its those many mini cores where it gets interesting, like LRB. If the SW implementation does well on LRB, that may well be our future, and forget these old clunkin quads and hex cores.
At some point, its feasable to see having sections of a multi chip chip working with the OS only, and have other areas dedicated to HW, more in a risc fashion, as theyre doing it a lil already, speaking of uops and macros. By doing this, its keeps legacy alive, while commiting little to it, and having the majority dedicated where its really needed, while also bringing video capability along with it

When you think about it, why not just make integrated graphics better? They don't realize how terrible they make those things?

Seriously, they can't even get multi core cpu's to work correctly, now they want to complicate things even more by adding a gpu/cpu combination in it?

Imagine if they made a single core, 45nm with specifications of let's say, second rate cpu's as of now. Those performance charts would look like a disaster.

As for the dual core i3/i5 cpu's that are supposedly going to be released later, they are either going to make them crappy, or they are going to regret releasing them.

Gfx and CPUs shouldn't be Hybrided, then changing out for new parts would become pretty expensive, the gfx cards, would be part of the CPU, which means if one dies then the other dies. And getting a new one would cost an arm and a leg. Mobos would be a burden on peoples wallets and they would have to get a new computer for those few parts that died.

It would be very impractical to combine GPU and CPU.

There is nothing wrong with i7. It's a new platform that hasn't scaled yet.

Although, I wouldn't buy it. As reviews show, it's not as fun as previous hardware and the price doesn't help much.

Quick note - modern CPUs have much more than a 64 bit memory bus. i7 has a 192 bit memory bus, and all dual channel IMC based CPUs (i5 + anything AMD) have a 128 bit bus. It's still a lot less than the GPUs, but far better than a 64 bit bus would be.

I think the i3/i5 dual core is going to be better then most people expect it to be, but most people won't buy it because it has only two cores.

If they released a single core with specification of recent cpu's, I would probably be the first dumbass to buy one. But hey, that's just me. (Given it has at least HT, which it is going to have I assume. I ain't that stupid) A-ctually, I take that back, even if it didn't it would still be good. Never going to happen though, too bad...

Btw, those celeron's that can overclock to 4.0 ghz have been looking like a real option lately now that I think about it. As for the older type of celeron's, don't count on it, those are still a joke.

Again, nothing wrong with i7. I actually think it's better then most people make it out to be but it just doesn't have the "fun" factor that most custom builders look for. Imho. I think it's great, but personally I would never buy it. It's those damn software and graphics companies that are ******* it up for everyone. MS included. Bastards should have listened to Bill Gates. What a damn shame... Oh well...

Trading blows with the same ghz as the second previous gen cpu's. Is i5 going to offer a dual core as well? That's not bad considering that is going to be the lowest offering. What are the specifications? I couldn't get the language thing to install.

From the pre showing of benchmarks, i3 is actually better then I thought it out to be. I was actually leaning towards i5 as the hard to beat for the price cpu. Not only that, hard to beat in terms of ocing overall. Cause, as we all know, or I'm assuming once again, the e5200 is the cpu to beat for performance/price ratio in terms of overclocking. It just doesn't quite get that much better than that. Although, I really would like a e8600 cpu to play around with. 4.4+ ghz is just something you just have to try, even if the e5200 overclocks just shy of 4 ghz normally.

Hell, 2.5 to 3.8 ghz performance with a e5200 on a ~$50 mobo was enough to make me laugh and say Intel messed up by releasing such a thing. Got to love Intel. Just stay away from almost anything that isn't labeled a cpu. LOL!

If it wasn't for cpu's like this, I'd be using an AMD, which isn't bad. Intel just saved their ass by releasing something hard to resist for the price.

I'm sure you remember in the thread when I anticipated this. Come on, you thought I was crazy back then too before it was on Intel's roadmap. Come on, cough it up. LOL!

Anyway, back to the thread. Close to 4 ghz without touching a thing? That's actually quite impressive. I'd almost have to call you out those findings if it wasn't for my anticipation.

Then again, they said i7 oc'd well also. I really didn't like how they exaggerated the performance of i7. This alone is enough to make any real enthusiast turn away.

Then that's looking very good. If this is somewhat correct in what you are saying I'll probably skip the e8600 idea.

LOL! **** the e8600 already. i5 dual core is what I'm going after next. How do you think they are going to implement the platform given there is going to be i3/15/i7? They better make them all interchangable otherwise it's going to be a hassle and limitation. Either way though, I'm still looking forward to i5 dual core.

No, that'd cannibalize their low-end GPU market (think HD 2400pro...)

Fusing CPU and GPU would increase data speeds, but for IGP-class GPUs, you wonder why?

Whaaaa? The x4500 already makes the 2400 look like a joke. What's your point?

Yeah, while decreasing overall performance on the cpu. What are you trying to get at?

What I am saying is, those are quite similar performance ranges and when you get a board with an x4500 or better yet x4500 hd, there's not really a good reason to get a 2400.

http://www.tech-forums.net/pc/f76/ [...] st-212331/

Not sure how reliable that list is.

They forgot the HD 3200 and 3300