To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.




Member since:
2006-12-28
...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.
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.