Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture to feature up to 2 GPUs on 1 monolithic die

Sandy Bridge CPU to have up to 2 GPUs

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/7...tellogonew.gif

Monolithic on-die

Quote:

---

We were quite shocked to learn that Intel might be the first company to ever launch two GPUs on the same die. Not only does it look like Intel might be the first with monolithically integrated with the CPU and have Fusion before AMD, bit it might be the first “graphics” company to ever launch two GPUs on the same die.

According to Intel’s plans that were revealed to partners and industry insiders Sandy Bridge, brand new 32nm architecture will have one to two graphics cores on a monolithic die.

Intel will also let you connect discrete graphics via PCIe 16X and even SLI / Crossfire should be possible with 2x 8X PCIe slots. This is likely to happen on desktop boards rather than notebook.

At this time we are not aware that Nvidia and ATI will launch their dual GPU solutions on a single chip, but if you look a high-end card, for example a Fermi, it card has 512 shader cores and if you cut it in half you get a mainstream card. With this in mind, ATI and Nvidia practically make high-end chips out of four low end GPUs.

---

Source

Dual GMA 4500. :ROTF:

Oh god you have some faster wire :cheer2: Gonna to del my thread...

FUD? Why not just use one single bigger GPU core? Or is it going to be some sort of 2 CUDA cores, just not CUDA? :p: The die's monolithic... Doesn't make much sense, does it? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

FUD? Why not just use one single bigger GPU core? Or is it going to be some sort of 2 CUDA cores, just not CUDA? :p: The die's monolithic... Doesn't make much sense, does it? :confused:

---

Yeah the reason people have not done this before was because it was better to just join the two, they must each serve some sort of different purpose.

Yeah, right, but why would anyone want to put two GPUs on the same die?

this makes no sense at all... espeical since there is no multigpu approach from intel till now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliverda

Dual GMA 4500. :ROTF:

---

just what i always wanted! :rofl:

i think that it is probably 2 reasons for this:

1. to better compete with llano, i do not think that anyone here can argue that intel is better at graphics than ati.

2. these two gpus have some sort of special function.

I'm guessing dual GMA for better dual display performance?

Definitely did not see this coming from Intel, but good for them if they can pull it off I suppose.

Maybe one dedicated for HD video decoding/h.264/blu-ray etc and the other for gaming/graphics? They've stressed modularity over the past few years with nehalem and westmere.

On the flip side, maybe since LRB will no longer be making it on die anytime soon, they realized that their alternative graphics core (GMA whatever) wouldnt be enough so they are putting 2. That seems more logical to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliverda

Dual GMA 4500. :ROTF:

---

Yeah... GMA X5200 should be a "revolutionary" IGP, but it was just a common IGP, no "revolutionary" performance. Intel does not know how to GPU's high performance.

(word of who had GMA 845, 865, 900, 950, 3100, X3100, and X5200 about to have)

Quote:

---

At this time we are not aware that Nvidia and ATI will launch their dual GPU solutions on a single chip, but if you look a high-end card, for example a Fermi, it card has 512 shader cores and if you cut it in half you get a mainstream card. With this in mind, ATI and Nvidia practically make high-end chips out of four low end GPUs.

---

how... what, errr, he? with what in mind? i don't get this part :F

Dual GPU cores on one die onboard the CPU? Why? By the time they are done with this thing its gonna look like an old Pentium 2 Slot 1 cartridge!

Well imo, doubling up the crap only gives you a bigger crap...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenknics

Maybe one dedicated for HD video decoding/h.264/blu-ray etc and the other for gaming/graphics? They've stressed modularity over the past few years with nehalem and westmere.

---

Video decoding is not done in a GPU, but in dedicated logic/DSPs. Like UVD on ATI GPUs, or PureVideo on Nvidia's, or Broadcom chip at some netbooks, etc. It is totaly different logic, even inside the same silicon, in the same way as a memory controller is different from an CPU core.

I see no reason for an "dual core gpu". I call FUD in this too.

How often is Fudzilla ever right when it comes to this kind of stuff? My local weather man is more accurate while trying to forecast a snowstorm two weeks in advance. There are two types of links that I won't click on and one is toms and the other is fudzilla.

Redundancy because the have extra allocatable space on die? I think not.

Multiple monitor support? I think not.

Hack-eyed attempt to run them together with Lucid technology? Maybe >_<

One dumpy GPU and one Dumpier GPU for energy conservancy? Might work.

Fud being full of it? Most likely.

why there's no [FUD] at the beginning of this thread title?

BTW even Intel knows that idea of monolithic dual-die GPU is pure nonsense ;)

"At this time we are not aware that Nvidia and ATI will launch their dual GPU solutions on a single chip, but if you look a high-end card, for example a Fermi, it card has 512 shader cores and if you cut it in half you get a mainstream card. With this in mind, ATI and Nvidia practically make high-end chips out of four low end GPUs."

and chocolate manufacturers make 300g bars out of lots of small dices :D

eh Fudo should know better than this... but then again ridership age/knowledge should always come first ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zerazax

just what i always wanted! :rofl:

---

in Slifire? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rintamarotta

in Slifire? :)

---

In QPIFire:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larvitar

In QPIFire:rolleyes:

---

Yeah, there so rubbish we have to plumb two of them directly into the QPI to get anywhere near 5450 performance!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

FUD? Why not just use one single bigger GPU core? Or is it going to be some sort of 2 CUDA cores, just not CUDA? :p: The die's monolithic... Doesn't make much sense, does it? :confused:

---

This! I totally agree! I mean, you can barely use Intel's GPUs for anything else than office related work, wth would you need two GPUs for?! Unless they are "Larrabee"-cores which can be used for OpenCL-computation as well.

Doesn't AMD follow that path with their "APU"? Use the GPU for some parts of the calculations?

(Sorry if what I'm writing is a bit mixed up, had a few Mojitos and a little bit of that: http://img10.abload.de/img/img_3144fe2a.jpg )

If those two GPU's are Larrabee based, then thats a shed load of x86. They'll make nvidia nervous as it'll sit in the area where they are trying to sell Fermi at 2k a pop. If that's the plan Intel don't have to beat Fermi, they just have to not use 300watts.

If true, likely a marketing gimmick from Intel.Advertising dual core GPU's after success of dual core CPU , could be a good strategy.I already see an advert explaining what GPU is , and how doubly awesome this one is.

It is difficult for Intel to produce something competitive in the field of graphics cards after leaving the Larrabee. The fact is that it has nothing to "evolve" beyond their IGP's, and even though she did a "QPIfire" a chip based on the architecture of GMAs, it will never compete with Fermi, Cypress, or any other competitor in performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

this makes no sense at all... espeical since there is no multigpu approach from intel till now...

---

There is a mention on Fud today about some Intel/Nvidia multi GPU tech called Optimus.

lolz
GMA 4500 x 2?
oh..it is going to be VERY powerful
can play CoD at 1024*768 at med setting???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haylui

lolz
GMA 4500 x 2?
oh..it is going to be VERY powerful
can play CoD at 1024*768 at med setting???

---

If you mean CoD1, YES! :)

I can play Call of Duty 1 @70-85FPS constant (Vertical Sync Enabled) Max Details (max on everything) with the HD3300 IGP on my 1024x768 CRT. An that was with my X2 5400+, should be better with the new Phenom.

Could it be for power management? 1 GPU if light work load, 2nd if needed. Power reduction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etihtsarom

Could it be for power management? 1 GPU if light work load, 2nd if needed. Power reduction.

---

If it was that you could just segregate the GPU and have 1 big one. Desktop work? shut down 3/4 of the shader groups. Gaming? Fire them all up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haylui

lolz
GMA 4500 x 2?
oh..it is going to be VERY powerful
can play CoD at 1024*768 at med setting???

---

At leaset Clarkdale IGP can do it better then AMD's IGP :):

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...aphics/cod.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larvitar

It is difficult for Intel to produce something competitive in the field of graphics cards after leaving the Larrabee.

---

Difficult but not inpossible. Intel's IGP already reached the level of competitor's IGPs now it is just mather of time when Intel enters high perf. graphics. There's one thing remains - put more shader processors and rasterization units on die :ROTF:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...-graphics.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

FUD? Why not just use one single bigger GPU core? Or is it going to be some sort of 2 CUDA cores, just not CUDA? The die's monolithic... Doesn't make much sense, does it?

---

While personaly I dont believe in such move from intel, I still can see some reasons behind this, mostly price driven. Also it seems, that Intel may incorporate some gpgpu functionality in newer IGPs.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video.../mediashow.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

At leaset Clarkdale IGP can do it better then AMD's IGP :):


Difficult but not inpossible. Intel's IGP already reached the level of competitor's IGPs now it is just mather of time when Intel enters high perf. graphics. There's one thing remains - put more shader processors and rasterization units on die :ROTF:



While personaly I dont believe in such move from intel, I still can see some reasons behind this, mostly price driven. Also it seems, that Intel may incorporate some gpgpu functionality in newer IGPs.

---

:D did you actually check the full review of xbitlabs: EPIC failure

they use 785 chipset without sideport so its a 1year old chipset against the latest, there are way faster chipsets available and within 1 month you have the 8xx series. They use a 3.0 intel against 2.9 amd hohoho :clap: a dual against a quad, so again the power and price is out of spec none of the tests done is actually using the quad core.

If you only show the games where it was actually higher sure an intel fan is always right, but what about quake,trackmania,streetfighter,hawx,far cry,left4 dead where the new intel is equal or way less for sure with 1280 res.

as always, there must be some truth to what he wrote... but with all the missing grammar... this time i really cant tell what hes talking about... at all... :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

At leaset Clarkdale IGP can do it better then AMD's IGP :)

---

at 3-4 times the die size and 2-3 times the tdp, wow... amazing! :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

:D did you actually check the full review of xbitlabs: EPIC failure

---

And you call me fan? Yeh, right... :clap:

Quote:

---

they use 785 chipset without sideport so its a 1year old chipset against the latest, there are way faster chipsets available and within 1 month you have the 8xx series. They use a 3.0 intel against 2.9 amd hohoho :clap: a dual against a quad, so again the power and price is out of spec none of the tests done is actually using the quad core.

---

Does all this really mather. AMD still can't complete with more then 1 year old Nehalem. So what?

Quote:

---

If you only show the games where it was actually higher sure an intel fan is always right, but what about quake,trackmania,streetfighter,hawx,far cry,left4 dead where the new intel is equal or way less for sure with 1280 res.

---

You're free to post images. My post addressed specific message about CoD performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

at 3-4 times the die size and 2-3 times the tdp, wow... amazing! :P

---

Where from you get those numbers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

And you call me fun? Yeh, right... :clap:


Does all this really mather. AMD still can't complete with more then 1 year old Nehalem. So what?


You're free to post images. My post addressed specific message about CoD performance.

Where from you get those numbers?

---

Fan boy spotted
anyway with Intel's size, it is a shame to design such a lousy GPU.
btw, don't take something out of context, it really doesn't help the fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

While personaly I dont believe in such move from intel, I still can see some reasons behind this, mostly price driven. Also it seems, that Intel may incorporate some gpgpu functionality in newer IGPs.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video.../mediashow.png

---

Can you show results with disabled GPU acceleration settings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haylui

Fan boy spotted
anyway with Intel's size, it is a shame to design such a lousy GPU.
btw, don't take something out of context, it really doesn't help the fact.

---

Unfortunately, in recent times it is not possible on this forum to say anything good about Intel without to be labeled a fanboy.

Quote:

---

Can you show results with disabled GPU acceleration settings?

---

This is from earlier review:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._11.html#sect0

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/c.../cyberlink.png

Not sure if it is comparable, but generaly speaking, i3-530 ~ Athlon X4 630 in this test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

This is from earlier review:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._11.html#sect0

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/c.../cyberlink.png

Not sure if it is comparable,

---

It is not comparable. The Cyberlink Mediashow 5 and the Cyberlink Mediashow Espresso 5.5 are pretty different applications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

...but generaly speaking, i3-530 ~ Athlon X4 630 in this test.

---

It is not so simple. The SSE4 support could make pretty big differences in video conversion. And it's only one thing. Anyway the Mediashow Espresso is highly optimized for the Core i architecture. source

BTW if you take a look at the GPU Optimization tab you can see that the Mediashow Espresso doesn't support the HD 4200 IGP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by >HyperlogiK<

There is a mention on Fud today about some Intel/Nvidia multi GPU tech called Optimus.

---

Get that running Prime!

Here comes Intel!!
Hold your 5970 buys!!

This makes sense because this is what nvati should have done a long time ago.

If you can create perfectly modular gpu cores you cut down production costs and increase yields. Improving performance becomes a plug-&-play challenge. With gfx processing highly parallel by nature, as you add more cores you get more performance. All you need is a proper high bandwidth interface to the texture buffers.

It costs intel peanuts to produce their IGPs. If they release lowend/mainstream gfxes with this concept they can compete at wicked prices.

Get ASUS to take it up, and you can have 6 gpus on one card :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by >HyperlogiK<

There is a mention on Fud today about some Intel/Nvidia multi GPU tech called Optimus.

---

Optimus is nothing else but hybrid sli v2, remember when they hyped that? turn off your dedicated gpu to save power with using the integrated graphics and turn it back on when needed, except that you had to reboot in between. Optimus promises to get rid of that flaw.

Adding a second integrated crappy gpu won't do much for performance, so unless Intel plans to use one of them for something else than graphics it makes no sense whatsoever to have two integrated gpus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by naokaji

Adding a second integrated crappy gpu won't do much for performance, so unless Intel plans to use one of them for something else than graphics it makes no sense whatsoever to have two integrated gpus.

---

I'm sorry, what?

Doubling the GPU resources (having 2 instead of 1 "graphics core") will likely just about double the IGP performance.

It's a great way to market variable IGP power & performance, as consumers are now familiar with multi-core CPUs.

It also means Intel can offer a broader range of IGP power and performance on Sandy Bridge parts, while saving die space on those intended for office work only.

The "dual-core GPU" parts can service the consumer light-gaming market, the single-core for business.

But, I guess it will take AMD copying the same marketing strategy for its legions of fans to suddenly praise this as the best idea since sliced bread. Much like "turbo boost" is suddenly a great thing after years of irrational disparagement. :shakes:

But then, they'd first have to figure out that IGPs are not intended for playing Crysis with max eye-candy, and looking over this thread, plenty are unclear on that concept as well. It's as though "performance PER WATT" was a completely foreign concept suddenly, just because it's a GPU, not a CPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrace215

But, I guess it will take AMD copying the same marketing strategy for its legions of fans to suddenly praise this as the best idea since sliced bread. Much like "turbo boost" is suddenly a great thing after years of irrational disparagement. :shakes:

---

And if AMD did this you'd be telling us what a horrible idea it is. :rolleyes: We haven't even gotten into the mess that relying on multi-gpu drivers from Intel would cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrace215

I'm sorry, what?

Doubling the GPU resources (having 2 instead of 1 "graphics core") will likely just about double the IGP performance.

---

You believe in perfect scaling? look at crossfire and sli, one single faster gpu makes more sense than two crappy gpus, I don't see how Intel would manage to make it scale better than nvidia or amd, save power? just drop the clocks and voltage or do it like amd does with the 5xxx series, from super low end to fastest thing on the market its all essentially the same desgin, just more or less of the same but much less scaling issues than cf / sli.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by naokaji

I don't see how Intel would manage to make it scale better than nvidia or amd, save power?.

---

That's why you're not making Billions of dollars and Intel IS. May be they just studied slightly harder and barely edged ahead of you and figured it out. Let's wait and see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

At leaset Clarkdale IGP can do it better then AMD's IGP :):

---

No, it can't.

HD4200 is 785G, the best AMD IGP is HD3300 (790GX), even on the xbitlabs review this IGP @ 900MHz can't beat the HD4200 @ 700MHz here:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...ics/quake4.png

here (1024x768)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...phics/tmnf.png

here

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...s/sfighter.png

here (1024x768)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...phics/hawx.png

here

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...ics/farcry.png

and here (1024x768)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...phics/l4d2.png

Intel' igp @ 733MHz can only beat HD4200 @ 700MHz in ONE game
and now, add a sideport to this, then you have the HD3300.

plus, in this review, it's i3 540 vs X4 635, but with the price of a i3 540 you can have a Phenom II X4 925 witch is much better for gaming than the X4 635.

this Intel HD IGP is not crap, it's enough for most users and big improvement over GMA4500, but AMD's best IGP is still much better than Intel's best IGP.
And this AMD's chipsets are pretty old, they will have new IGPs soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haylui

lolz
GMA 4500 x 2?
oh..it is going to be VERY powerful
can play CoD at 1024*768 at med setting???

---

You guys are pathetic arguing about IGP performance. Are you so proud of your beloved dear company? :rolleyes: That must be the only good thing about your AMD PC huh? Your IGP.

You guys are really pathetic, I thought this was Xtremesystems.

Anyways back on topic, I think it's a bit strange for Intel to make this move. For office and general use, a single IGP from any company is fine.

what you expect to discuss in that topic global warming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etihtsarom

That's why you're not making Billions of dollars and Intel IS. May be they just studied slightly harder and barely edged ahead of you and figured it out. Let's wait and see.

---

If this was true why haven't they already done so? Intel doesn't need to make good graphic hardware in order to sell their IGPs, so they don't. They aren't going to beat Nvidia or ATI in multi gpu scaling with their current mindset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129

You guys are pathetic arguing about IGP performance. Are you so proud of your beloved dear company? :rolleyes: That must be the only good thing about your AMD PC huh? Your IGP.

You guys are really pathetic, I thought this was Xtreme systems.

Anyways back on topic, I think it's a bit strange for Intel to make this move. For office and general use, a single IGP from any company is fine.

---

you are right, this is extreme systems, and we are discussing intel's "xtreme graphics"......lol, and do you really think that current intel igp's will be able to handle web 3.0+?

but the main thing is fanboys are arguing....any chance they can get to bash the other guy; they will take it. akuna-mattata man, circle of life!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMojoZ

If this was true why haven't they already done so? Intel doesn't need to make good graphic hardware in order to sell their IGPs, so they don't. They aren't going to beat Nvidia or ATI in multi gpu scaling with their current mindset.

---

Be careful there, just cuz they haven't yet doesn't mean they aren't working on it...

Larrabee may be dead for the moment, but i suspectyou'll be seeing some decent graphics from Intel yet... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129

Anyways back on topic, I think it's a bit strange for Intel to make this move. For office and general use, a single IGP from any company is fine.

---

what i find stranger that no one here has noticed is that a quadcore will have an igp. this sounds like a bottleneck to me. the goal of igp's are to display windows and save money but it doesnt belong on a high end chip.

my speculation is that they have two gpu's on die so at idle they can turn one off for better idle power.
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/9452/003xq.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by god_43

i think that it is probably 2 reasons for this:

1. to better compete with llano, i do not think that anyone here can argue that intel is better at graphics than ati.

2. these two gpus have some sort of special function.

---

Maybe it takes 2 to deliver what one amd can deliver. I am up for it , id love to see it. but its not sli its not xfire could we come up with a pet name for Intels uber 2gfx setup? :rofl:
how about bridged video graphics Beegee's for short

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Otis11

Be careful there, just cuz they haven't yet doesn't mean they aren't working on it...

Larrabee may be dead for the moment, but i suspectyou'll be seeing some decent graphics from Intel yet... ;)

---

Larrabee was only dead ended in discrete segments , and we know not why. Intel made massive investments in gfx and after the AMD/sec/ftc fallout was able to look at ATI patents. Could be that they have an ondie solution but how much of the slower sys ram is it going to eat?

I can't, for the love of god, see why anyone wants to argue on IGP's. Who cares if an IGP manages 10 more FPS when it still can't reach playable framerates :confused:

As long as an IGP works in browsing, playing HD stuff then that is enough!! You wont game on it :shrug: Perhaps in the future, but not now when you get 30 fps in 800x600 at very low settings. Thats just wrong.

Looking very much forward to Sandy Bridge, tho;)

Wild speculation:

One GPU will be an Intel GMA GPU, the other an Nvida GPU. Optimus switching technology will determine which gpu will be in use - providing both CPU and GPU performance and powersaving in one single package. Intel and Nvidia will laugh all the way to the bank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfar

Wild speculation:

One GPU will be an Intel GMA GPU, the other an Nvida GPU. Optimus switching technology will determine which gpu will be in use - providing both CPU and GPU performance and powersaving in one single package. Intel and Nvidia will laugh all the way to the bank.

---

LOL, what? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfar

Wild speculation:

One GPU will be an Intel GMA GPU, the other an Nvida GPU. Optimus switching technology will determine which gpu will be in use - providing both CPU and GPU performance and powersaving in one single package. Intel and Nvidia will laugh all the way to the bank.

---

:rofl::ROTF: :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129

Anyways back on topic, I think it's a bit strange for Intel to make this move. For office and general use, a single IGP from any company is fine.

---

"2 graphics cores" != 2 IGPs.

In the same way that a dual-core CPU is not "2 CPUs", but even more so, given the parallel nature of virtually all GPU workloads.

Fuad got a little piece of information, and then got confused.

There is one IGP. It can have 1 or 2 cores, depending on the model. That's like saying... 16 or 32 shaders, for example.

Addressing another poster, this is not the "high end part". QC is the mainstream part. IIRC, there's an 8-core part with no IGP for the high-end.

all new socket too, suckes they are ditching lga1156 so soon.

side note, bulldozer is supposed to compete with sandy riight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monkeywoman

all new socket too, suckes they are ditching lga1156 so soon.

side note, bulldozer is supposed to compete with sandy riight?

---

llano will compete with IGP sandy bridge models in the low-mid range and bulldozer will take the high-end

IMO Llano will be the first IGP REALLY capable of playing Games as it's supposed to have more shader cored than HD 56xx :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generics_user

IMO Llano will be the first IGP REALLY capable of playing Games as it's supposed to have more shader cored than HD 56xx :eek:

---

Thats what im talking about, im waiting for via nano3000 for my first netbook, llano will be nice for my first lappy :up:

This is what i wrote some weeks ago:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

Amm Intel did delay Sandy bridge and they did it to try and implement something which SB does not have and BD does. Tough the implementation is very hard to accomplish i have been told 3-4 teams are working on it right now, one may call it the v1.1 the v1.0 of SB is all ready for the fight....

If the v1.1 works out it will get relesed in stead of the v1.0 otherwise v1.0 will be used, in tis case IB will come sooner than later.

---

What FUD says is very partially true either they did not understand or they are diluting the info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generics_user

llano will compete with IGP sandy bridge models in the low-mid range and bulldozer will take the high-end

IMO Llano will be the first IGP REALLY capable of playing Games as it's supposed to have more shader cored than HD 56xx :eek:

---

Shaders is the least i care for, its the memory, especial the available bandwidth that concerns me.

A HD5670 has x2,5 more bandwidth available and even a HD5570 has more bandwidth than DDR3-1600 allowes. Plus all those GPU bandwidths are not shared with the CPU.

SB will be still pretty far behind GPU wise IMO, unless Inte's really doing a huge breakthrough there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliverda

Dual GMA 4500. :ROTF:

---

in "FUDFIRE" :shocked:

Fud "reports" intel told select few partners that top bin SB dual core model should end up around 20% faster than today's top bin Arrandale/Clarkdale dual core chip.We know that Arrandales do have subpar memory perfromance when compared to even 45nm Nehalem's(Bloom and Lynfields,due to the way IMC is redesigned and moved over to other die) and we know intel will additionally tweak the Turbo boost on SB cores,presumably one or two more speed bins over Westmere generation. All in all,not that impressive,but it is not that bad either. I would like to know exactly how much of these 20% is IPC and how much his the difference in clock(due to different Turbo modes supported by SB cores).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/9452/003xq.jpg

---

significantly improved performance? huh? in what?
i guess this refers to avx? or the igp? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfar

Wild speculation:

One GPU will be an Intel GMA GPU, the other an Nvida GPU. Optimus switching technology will determine which gpu will be in use - providing both CPU and GPU performance and powersaving in one single package. Intel and Nvidia will laugh all the way to the bank.

---

interesting idea, but i dont think so...
its probably an imagination technology igp plus a gma igp...
the imagination technology thing will be 2d, and gma will do video and games... i guess...

that one makes the most sense at least, cause intel has been using imagination technology ip for a while, and they seem to have completely given up on getting their gma stuff to low power, instead they rely on imagination for low power and focus on performance with gma

Fud cracks me up, the low down is that SB has some enhancements and a better voltage control sub system this allows better and cooler* operation for the cores and reduces the heat generated due to lower energy consumption "This is partly due to a better 32nm process".

This allows the speed to be increased within the same power envelope, thus for the same consumption you get better performance. Ohh ya you all remember the word "Dual Turbo" :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

significantly improved performance? huh? in what?
i guess this refers to avx? or the igp? :confused:

---

Doubt that's IGP.
Probably compared to Lynnfield. Should be faster at least due to much higher clocks.

SNB still haven't appeared on Intel's latest roadmap yet. :shakes:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...3_intel_rm.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vozer

SNB still haven't appeared on Intel's latest roadmap yet. :shakes:

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...3_intel_rm.jpg

---

I dont think we''ll have hexa/octo-core sandys to replace i7 in Q1/2011.
I'd say Q2/2011 at best...

Q4/2010-Q1/2011 is for desktop/mobile quad-cores with IGP (clarkdale/lynnfield replacement)