Slashdot Mirror
Nvidia Working on a CPU+GPU Combo
Max Romantschuk writes "Nvidia is apparently working on an x86 CPU with integrated graphics. The target market seems to be OEMs, but what other prospects could a solution like this have? Given recent development with projects like Folding@Home's GPU client you can't help but wonder about the possibilities of a CPU with an integrated GPU. Things like video encoding and decoding, audio processing and other applications could benefit a lot from a low latency CPU+GPU combo. What if you could put multiple chips like these in one machine? With AMD+ATI and Intel's own integrated graphics, will basic GPU functionality be integrated in all CPU's eventually? Will dedicated graphics cards become a niche product for enthusiasts and pros, like audio cards already largely have?" The article is from the Inquirer, so a dash of salt might make this more palatable.
What I don't understand is that I thought GPUs were made to offload a lot of graphics computations from the CPU. So why are we merging them again? Isn't a GPU supposed to be an auxillary CPU only for graphics? I'm so confused.
What I'm not confused about is the sentence from the above article: Oh, I've worked with my fair share of DAAMIT engineers. They're the ones that go, "Yeah, it's pretty good but
My work here is dung.
Unless Nvidia is partnering with Intel to release this chip, I think they're getting too far out of their confort zone to be successful. Sure, a dual or even quad core chip with half of the cores handling graphics would be great, but can Nvidia deliver? I doubt it ... look how many companies have gone down the tubes after spending millions/billions after trying to make an x86 compatible chip, let alone trying to integrate top end graphics as well.
Nvidia is a fantastic graphics card company - they should continue to innovate focus on what they're good at rather than try to play follow the leader in an arena they know nothing about.
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
GPUs are going the way of the math co-processor. I think it's inevitable.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
Okay, I admit, I haven't RTFA yet, but if GPUs do get folded back into CPUs, I think we need to thank MS.
... Seriously. Think for a minute.
:)
No.
The major driving force right now in GPU development and purchase are games.
The major factor that they have to contend with is DirectX.
As of DirectXv10. A card either IS, or IS NOT compliant. None of this "We are 67.3% compliant".
This provides a known target that can be reached. I wouldn't be surprised if the DirectX10 (video) featureset becomes synonymous with 'VGA Graphics' given enough time.
Yeah, sure, MS will come out with DX11, and those CPUs won't be compatible, but so what?, If you upgrade your CPU and GPU regularly anyway to maintain the 'killer rig', why not just upgrade them together?
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
A while ago -- and maybe it was in the Slashdot discussion about ATI, I'm not sure -- somebody described a cycle in computer design, where various components are built-in monolithically, then broken out as separate components, and then swallowed back up into monolithic designs again.
Graphics chips seem to have done this cycle at least once; perhaps now we're just looking at the next stage in the cycle? We've had graphics as a separate component from the processor for a while, perhaps the next stage in the cycle is for them to combine together into a G/CPU, to take advantage of the design gains in general-purpose processors.
Then at some point down the road, the GPU (or more likely, various GPU-like functional units) might get separated back out onto their own silicon, as more application-specific processors become advantageous once again.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I've been expecting this for a while, ever since the transistor count of the GPU passed that of the CPU. Actually, I thought it would happen sooner. It's certainly time. Putting more transistors into a single CPU doesn't help any more, which is why we now have "multicore" machines. So it's time to put more of the computer into a single part.
NVidia already makes the nForce line, the "everything but the CPU" part, with graphics, Ethernet, disk interface, etc. If they stick a CPU in there, they have a whole computer.
Chip designers can license x86 implementations; they don't have to be redesigned from scratch. This isn't going to be a tough job for NVidia.
What we're headed for is the one-chip "value PC", the one that sits on every corporate desk. That's where the best price/performance is.
The Inquirer is more of a rumor site than a news site. They have a pretty good track record for their rumors, but they don't have people on record backing this one up.
What NVidia eventually does may not bear much resemblance to the story.
System RAM is SLOW compared to GPU RAM. PCIe actually allows very high speed access to system RAM, but the RAM itself is too slow for GPUs. That's one of the reasons their RAM amounts are so small, they use higher speed and thus more expensive RAM. Also because of the speed you end up dealing with cooling and signal issues which makes it impractical (or perhaps impossible) to simply stick it in addon slots to allow for upgrades.
Even fast as it is, it's still slower than the GPU would really like.
What you've suggested is already done by low end accelerators like the Intel GMA 950. Works ok, but as I said, slow.
Unless you are willing to start dropping serious amounts of cash on system RAM, we'll be needing to stick with dedicated video RAM here for some time.
Yes the SYSTEMS Tom used to test have normal speed ram for systems. Duh. The graphics cards, however, have much faster RAM. For example my system at home has DDR2-667 RAM. That's spec'd to run at 333MHz which is 667MHz is DDR RAM speak. My graphics card, a 7800GT, on the other hand has RAM clocked at 600MHz, or 1200MHz in RAM speak.
Not a small difference, really. My system RAM is rated to somewhere around 10GB/second max bandwidth (it gets like 6 in actuality). The graphics card? 54GB/sec.
Video cards have fast RAM subsystems. They use fast, expensive chips and they have controllers designed for blazing fast (and exclusive) access. You can't just throw normal, slow, system RAM at it and expect it to perform the same.