Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 22nd Aug 2007 17:11 UTC, submitted by maxton
AMD Phil Hester, AMD's chief technology officer, stopped by the Hot Chips conference here at Stanford University on Tuesday to talk a little more about Fusion, AMD's plan to integrate a graphics processor and PC processor onto the same chip. By the time the chip is ready around 2009, Hester thinks the growing explosion of video and 3D graphics on PCs these days will require an affordable chip that still delivers great graphics performance.
Thread beginning with comment 265067
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not like the 486
by SReilly on Wed 22nd Aug 2007 21:28 UTC
Member since:

...and Intel's decision to integrate a floating-point unit into it. The idea to integrate a math co-processor into a standard code grinder is nothing like integrating a graphics chip and a modern multipurpose processor.

He stepped back in chip history to liken the Fusion project to Intel's decision to integrate a floating-point processor into the 486 chip.

Otherwise, it's an interesting idea, especially when dealing with general, non gaming systems and non high end graphical systems.

Having built a few of these non gaming systems for people wanting only to surf, email and use office productivity suits, motherboards with integrated graphics chips are, without a doubt, the largest savings in cost. Having the same option, but on a processor level, should really drive down that cost.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not like the 486
by Fransexy on Wed 22nd Aug 2007 21:47 in reply to "Not like the 486"
Fransexy Member since:

pardon my ignorance but not a gpu integrated on the same cpu die and communicated bis a bis at the same bus speed would be faster than any pci gpu?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Not like the 486
by SReilly on Wed 22nd Aug 2007 23:33 in reply to "RE: Not like the 486"
SReilly Member since:

Thats a good point but you seem to be missing something. Gamers usually upgrade they're GPU several times before they upgrade the CPU and even though having the two integrated on the same die would result in faster data transfer between them, it would be very inflexible and upgrades would end up costing much more in the long run.

If you look at the advances in game technology, the latest 3D accelerator is a must have for large budget games. Just look at when Doom3 and Quake4 came out. I remember one article jokingly claiming that a Cray was needed to run both games, and that was just for the general system specs, not the graphics chip specs.

On the other hand, integrating a physics processor (like the AGEIA Physix chip) with either the CPU or the GPU die would be an instant sell for any gamer I know.

Reply Parent Score: 3