Just picture a mobo having two CPU sockets, only one is for graphics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Overgloc
That also means you'd have to buy RAM for graphics seperately. Just more options I guess.
Printable View
Just picture a mobo having two CPU sockets, only one is for graphics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Overgloc
That also means you'd have to buy RAM for graphics seperately. Just more options I guess.
Actually What AMD is hoping of doing is a few things
1) HTX Slot, which will allow graphics cards and other Specialized hardware to plug directly into the Hypertransport interconnect for a Massive performance boost
2) Make available to their Closest Partners the Ability to use the CPU socket as well
I found this on Wikipedia about HTX:
"The issue of bandwidth between CPUs and co-processors has usually been the major stumbling block to their practical implementation. After years without an officially recognized one, a connector designed for such expansion using a HyperTransport interface was recently introduced and is known as HyperTransport eXpansion (HTX). Using the same mechanical connector as a 16-lane PCI-Express slot, HTX allows plug-in cards to be developed which support direct access to a CPU and DMA access to the system RAM. Recently, co-processors such as FPGAs have appeared which can access the HyperTransport bus and become first-class citizens on the motherboard. Current generation FPGAs from both of the main manufacturers (Altera and Xilinx) can directly support the HyperTransport interface and have IP Cores available.
"Unfortunately, the existing HTX specification allows Hypertransport devices attached through HTX connectors to communicate at only a quarter of Hypertransport's full throughput, as it uses PCI-E's 16-bit connector and is downclocked to a mere 1.4Ghz in spite of an earlier Samtec connector[2] supporting 32-bit, 2.8Ghz operation."
And I made this. I doubt the people at ytmnd will like it, but who cares.
http://amdandati.ytmnd.com/
I seriously doubt AMD spent 5 billion dollars to please 1 percent of its customers with HTX. It's about making really cheap integrated/on-die cpu and graphics.
I think its more than that personally. Think about it.
Graphics cards, CPU's ect ect... you guys dont see any logic in it?
~Mike
IMO its more about the markets need for super computers, then selling boards and graphic cards. With the combination of tech the possibilities are endless.
GPUs are not useing the bandwidth they have now, and with slower DDR2 I fail to see any advantage with current parts. (unless you have seen the benchies :fact: )Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
It's like Christmas!!! :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by mascaras
Hopefully AMD will share it's secret on relatively low-power design for ATI's new designs... X1900XTX sooo hot... Just because we live in igloos and have 10 ft of snow in Canada doesn't mean we want our computers to be so warm :)
i think htx will help make a pc as effecient as a console.
not sure what i think about the merger yet. i like my choices and dont want to be stuck in a intel and nvidia or amd and ati situation.
You and I are talking about two different bandwidths. You are talking about GPU/Memory. I am talking about GPU/CPUQuote:
Originally Posted by lapdog
Very true, However in the graphics industry and the High end market (where they make the most money) It will give AMD a 20-35% Performance EDGE OVER Intel with the EXACT same card. That however is something worth a couple BillionQuote:
Originally Posted by Orangeman
You're thinking about it the wrong way, its not intergrating a GPU on die, its making a CPU that can do GPU tasks. A Cell CPU can do GPU work (sony's original plan was to not use a GPU at all), just like the emotion engine before it. This is the path that AMD and Intel want to take. If done well, GPU market will be killed off.
That's why the merger happened, as Intel is further along this path than AMD. With ATi AMD should be able to stay within 12 months of Intel and at least have a chance of taking the lead further in the game. Without ATi both had a chance of being pushed out in less than 5 years.
This merger is good for everyone in the long term if Intel is going in that direction. It means Intel can make the technological leap witout worrying about monopoly lawsuits.
AMD can keep Intel honest on pricing and effort, as no one wants a return to when Intel CPU's ruled the workstation market. And ATi doesn't disappear.
Going along that line of thought, what about nVidia?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconyu
Not a chance in hellQuote:
Originally Posted by Mortal
That was my original idea. I doubt the graphics market will be "killed off". If that ever happens, NVIDIA will just start makign their own brand of gaming CPUs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconyu
You say HTX will increase performance on AMD systems over Intel systems. Wouldn't there be different versions of cards then? Will HTX have a diffferent connector than PCIe, or is HTX just somethignt hey can attach to PCIe?
This is on on the nzone website:
"NVIDIA would like to provide reassurance that in light of AMD's recent announcement, both companies remain commited to support the enthusiast community with world-class products and support."
Intel really needs to enter the enthusiest graphics market. With all their resources, I'ms ure they COULD do it. But will they want to?
ANd here's what ytmnd thinks about my ytmnd,
http://home.comcast.net/~joobot/atiandamd.bmp
Integrating a motherboard with cpu gpu? You kidding me? 5 Billion dollars for that is not in the pudding my friends unless they intend to develop and extroadinary device called a CONSOLE GAME!!!!!!!.
Architecturally integration of the cpu with gpu makes more sense but the the gaming avenue is nothing for ATI.
Hey, I quite agree. I am just genuinely interested in his ideas. Different opinions/aspects interest me. (yes, yours too! :))
Indeed, nVidia do just enough everytime.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
this is big big news! i can't believe this isn't on the front page of XS. :eek:
anyways, AMD will be friends with nVidia for a very long , long , long time.
Intel may try to acquire nVidia, but i doubt that it will happen any time soon. right now, nVidia is even a bigger enemy to intel than AMD itself.
Cpu's are going multi - smaller cores and gpu's are just getting bigger and bigger. They seem, to me, to be diverging, so I am not sure how you can make them converge that much and have a cpu do both things. Isn't the design paradigm completely different ?
I still cannot get my head around this merger on whether it is good or bad or what the consequences are and I have the feeling that the big players are not that sure either. I guess in the long run Intel will not have AMD chipsets for it's boards and therefore will cosy up more to nvidia and Via. Will AMD really want nvidia as competition for it's own chipsets ..maybe.
Of course Dave Orton and Jen Hsun have really forced their respective companies along in recent years, will Dave still have the drive as part of AMD or will the top brass put limits on him ?
Interesting times ahead.
Regards
Andy
That is the Thing for the longest time GPU design has been parallel programming as much as you can. While the CPU design was make the most performance out of a given thread. Now with advanced shaders and DX10 GPUs are heading towards more and more advaned processing parts, while CPUs are heading towards more and more parallel code. Thus they are heading directly towards each other at a high speed. and by Combining parts in some cases. you can gain a real performance boost however it will not be of much use until the proper software makes the most use of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by zakelwe
Noooooooo, :(