Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Nov 2017 15:31 UTC

Well, this is the kind of news you don't hear every day: Intel and AMD are teaming up to develop a processor that combines an Intel CPU with an AMD GPU. From Intel's press release:

The new product, which will be part of our 8th Gen Intel Core family, brings together our high-performing Intel Core H-series processor, second generation High Bandwidth Memory (HBM2) and a custom-to-Intel third-party discrete graphics chip from AMD's Radeon Technologies Group* - all in a single processor package.

It’s a prime example of hardware and software innovations intersecting to create something amazing that fills a unique market gap. Helping to deliver on our vision for this new class of product, we worked with the team at AMD’s Radeon Technologies Group. In close collaboration, we designed a new semi-custom graphics chip, which means this is also a great example of how we can compete and work together, ultimately delivering innovation that is good for consumers.

This is the first partnership between these two sworn rivals in several decades, and that alone makes it quite notable. I didn't really know whether to put this in the Intel or AMD category, but I chose Intel because it appears above AMD in our list (which isn't alphabetical because reasons).

Thread beginning with comment 650732
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Not April Fool's?
by tylerdurden on Wed 8th Nov 2017 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not April Fool's?"
Member since:

Honestly, that's such a tired trope ;-). Since the 386, i.e. the mid 80s, on the x86 has been a fairly standard ISA.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Not April Fool's?
by Kochise on Thu 9th Nov 2017 06:17 in reply to "RE[6]: Not April Fool's?"
Kochise Member since:

Standard ISA doesn't mean a "clean and orthogonal ISA", in which the x86 specifically sucks, period. Look at 68k, mips, sh, to get an idea of what a better ISA looks like.

Of course x86 improved, especially the x96-64 gap introduced by AMD, but I digress, the legacy compatibility still spoils the fun.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Not April Fool's?
by tylerdurden on Thu 9th Nov 2017 21:15 in reply to "RE[7]: Not April Fool's?"
tylerdurden Member since:

Yawn. This is even more tired tripe. This keeps being repeated, usually someone read it on usenet and regurgigated it, rinse and repeat.

E.g. M68K has its own sets of inelegancies as an ISA. MIPS is even more ironic; like most RISC designs it was not meant to be exposed to the programmer that much, etc, etc.

As I said, past 386... x86 is not really that flawed/warty of an ISA. And with x64, it's just an ISA that support lots of programming models, so it ended being pretty flexible after all.

My main issue with x86 is not the subjective qualitative/stylistic masturbatory exercises some people engage, but rather that I'd prefer if the industry had standarized around an open ISA. So the barrier of entry would have been much lower to outfits trying to produce their own processors/toolchains/etc.

Reply Parent Score: 3