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 265093
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Solves the 99% user scenario
by JonathanBThompson on Wed 22nd Aug 2007 22:56 UTC
JonathanBThompson
Member since:
2006-05-26

Ok, so I'm pulling that statistic out of my rear, as most statistics seem to be harvested from someone's rear, but most people aren't that concerned with the highest speed of graphics displays on today's computers, because as long as the drivers are stable, and they aren't into the heavy 3D games and/or CAD type of stuff, most users don't push even the most mediocre video accelerator to the max with whatever they're doing.

While it should logically be that such an integration can produce faster graphics processing because there's a minimal amount of signal delay between the main CPU and the GPU, physics come together in a couple of ways to keep the top-performing solutions as discrete chips. Why? First, there's the die space: top-end modern GPUs are often larger than the current general purpose CPU available at the time. Second, there's the heat issue: both modern general purpose CPUs and modern top-end GPUs generate a huge amount of waste heat in a small amount of space, so the thermal envelope is another major factor in what's feasible to put in the same package.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Solves the 99% user scenario
by cromo on Wed 22nd Aug 2007 23:10 in reply to "Solves the 99% user scenario"
cromo Member since:
2006-06-17

"First, there's the die space: top-end modern GPUs are often larger than the current general purpose CPU available at the time. "

That's because different manufacturing process, as the CPUs are usually much more advanced in this manner and therefore occupying less space. Of course you are also right, because nowadays GPUs tend to have many more transistors than CPUs.

"a huge amount of waste heat in a small amount of space, so the thermal envelope is another major factor in what's feasible to put in the same package."

You again forgot about manufacturing process, which if more advanced, helps to produce less heat. And maintaining one cooling system for both GPU+CPU is generally a good idea, too, as it allows to use only a single but more advanced and efficent cooling system (e.g. some advanced and expensive heatpipe) instead of two simplier and cheaper, but equalling the cost of that advanced one when summed up.

Edited 2007-08-22 23:18

Reply Parent Score: 2