Slashdot Mirror
The Outlook On AMD's Fusion Plans
PreacherTom writes "Now that AMD's acquisition of ATI is complete, what do the cards hold for the parent company? According to most experts, it's a promising outlook for AMD . One of the brightest stars in AMD's future could be the Fusion program, which will 'fuse' AMD's CPUs with ATI's GPUs (graphics processing units) in a single, unified processor. The product is expected to debut in late 2007 or early 2008. Fusion brings a hopes of energy efficiency, with the CPU and GPU residing on a single chip. Fusion chips could also ease the impact on users who plan to use Windows Vista with Aero, an advanced interface that will only run on computers that can handle a heavy graphics load. Lastly, the tight architecture provided by Fusion could lead to a new set of small, compelling devices that can handle rich media."
Invest in heat sinks! :-)
how will homeland security like you bringing home a multi core Fusion through the gates?
"But, but its an AMD processor, built in Germany or Russia or somewhere"
"Teh internet told me it was more powerful than anything else out there."
"It would literally blow me away!"
liqbase
.. or advertising on TV. I work in a computer shop and it seems loads of people have no idea who the hell AMD are. I've explained that they're just competitors to a lot of customers, but still the customers go 'No, I've been told to get an Intel.' I can't recall having ever seen an AMD ad on telly at all.
yeah. i'm also wondering how putting the two hottest components on the mother board (the GPU and CPU) into the same package is a power savings... :-/
maybe on the low end of the market where the performance of the GPU is irrelevant, but for those who actually care about GPU performance, putting the two most power hungry and memory bw hungry components together doesn't seem like a good idea.
In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. -T.S. Eliot
...which may explain how AMD has managed to keep their costs low over the years. Word of mouth is compelling...even to the point that many folks that I know are now biased against Intel...even though we are at a unique point where AMD's advantage has eroded...at least for the moment.
Although I can see the potential efficiency increases, combining the GPU and CPU into one chip means that you will be forced to upgrade one when you only want to upgrade the other. To me, this seems like a bad idea in that AMD would have to make dozens of GPU/CPU combinations. Say I want one of AMD's chips in my headless server, am I going to have to buy a more expensive processor because it has a high powered GPU that I don't want or need? What if I want to build a system with a good processor to start, but due to budget reasons want to hold off on buying a good video card?
Combining the CPU and GPU may make sense for embedded systems or as a replacement for integrated graphics, but I cannot see it working for those who prefer to have specific components based on other factors.
Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer
Energy efficiency...
...
Project named Fusion...
Please tell me Pons and Fleischmann aren't behind this?
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
Although CPUs have gotten better in the past year, GPUs (particularly ATI's) still keep outdoing each other in just how much power they can suck.
With a decent single-GPU gaming rig drawing over 200W just between the CPU and GPU, do they plan to start selling water cooling kits as the stock boxed cooler?
Will it run Linux less than half a year after it's obsoleted by the next version?
Let's say I buy Fusion. Later on NVIDIA brings cool graphics card to market. Will I be able to use NVIDIA graphic card with Fusion ?
To some extent, yes.
I just finished explaining to a friend why the software he just purchased for his business will run fine on the laptop I suggested from a Fry's ad. The specs for the software list "Intel Processor" and he assumed the AMD chip in my recommendation wouldn't work, because he has no idea what a processor even does. I would even hazard a guess that whomever wrote those specs doesn't know either, this little software vendor isn't getting paid to push Intel hardware.
If they could just get word out enough to get the general public to realize that they are making an x86 alternative to Intel they might do themselves some good.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Whoa. You're going to need a closed-source kernel driver to use your CPU now? They can eat me. The graphics driver situation is bad enough.
This one is untouchable until they open up the graphics drivers - or goodbye AMD/ATI.
jh
does this mean ATI will be opening up its GPU programming specs, or merely what is being stated (that graphics chip and CPU will share a die) ?
Prior to 486s, they used to have the floating point functions on a separate chip from the processor. If the GPU is moving to the processor now, what will be the next thing to get sucked in?
science is a religion
this processor will just be a addon ontop of the vid card you would have, like 3dnow! its just a add on, maybe we can shift into 128bit processors!
Wulfram II - Free Online Mutiplayer 3D Tank Shooting Gam
Gee, most of the servers I use don't have a video card. Some of the servers have serial ports. Others talk over a proprietary fabric - and pretend to have a serial connection (and maybe even VGA). I don't need to walk into the lab to get to the server's virtual consoles.
Coming to think of it, the way we have things set up, the console is inaccessible from the lab - but accessible via terminal concentrators - over the lan.
Where law ends, tyranny begins -- William Pitt
The article says that this might be attractive to businesses: I can see that since most businesses don't care about graphics. This is similar to businesses buying computers with cheap on-board video cards. But that means they will be profiting on the low-end. It seems like this is more of a boon for laptops and consoles: Currently, laptops with decent video cards are expensive and power-hungry. Same with consoles. But for mid-range and high-end systems, there must be a modular bus connecting these two parts since they are likely to evolve at different rates, and likely to be swapped-out individually.
Leave the advertising to the computer manufacturers like Dell and HP. Now that Dell is going to carry AMD, they could start putting in AMD logos with whatever "chime" AMD has at the end of every one of their commercials. On their website, they can even say, "Now we bring you more savings by offering you the option of an AMD processor." Followed by an explanation that AMD is on par with intel when it comes to speed and is fully compatible with all software designed for intels. If I were in charge, I'd probably drop the Celeron as the low cost alternative and just push AMD's. In general the AMD costs as much, if not less than a Celeron and outperforms it like gangbusters.
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
I've been an nVidia advocate since 1999 when I bought a TNT2 Ultra for playing Quake III Arena under Linux on my (then) K6-2 400.
I'm on my 4th nVidia graphics card, and I have 6 machines, all running Linux. One is a 10-year-old UltraSPARC, one has an ATI card.
Despite slashbot rantings about the closed-source nVidia drivers, and despite my motley collection of Frankenstein hardware, I've never had a problem with the nVidia stuff. The ATI stuff is junk. The drivers are pathetic (open source) and the display is snowy, and the performance it rubbish.
I hope AMD do something about the Linux driver situation.
My next machine will be another AMD, this time with dual dual-core processors and I'll be doing my own Slackware port, but I'll be buying an nVidia graphics card.
Stick Men
Especially the former, where you can't really upgrade anyway and you typically have a GPU soldered to the board.
The advantages of a combined CPU/GPU in this space are:
1) Fewer chips means a cheaper board.
2) The GPU is connected directly to the memory interface, so UMA solutions will not suck nearly as hard.
3) No HT hop to get to the GPU, so power is saved on the interface and CPU-GPU communication will be very low latency.
I highly doubt AMD is planning on using combined CPU/GPU solutions on their mainstream desktop parts, and they are absolutely not going to do so for server parts. I think in those spaces they'd much rather have four cores on the CPU, and let you slap in the latest-greatest (ATI I'm sure they hope, but if NVidia gives them the best benchmark score vs Intel chips then so be it) graphics card.
AMD has already distinguished their server, mobile, desktop, and value lines. They are not going to suddenly become retarded and forget that these markets have different needs and force an ATI GPU on all of them.
The enemies of Democracy are
Cool amd is about to MediaGX themselves.
the processor market still changes too rapidly for this kind of bonding.
Do you really want to have to replace an entire system when you upgrade? You buy a Dell, a new game comes out 6 months and your system can't play it reasonably well.
So then you either
a) buy a new system
or
b) gut in a video card and not use the one on the proc.
When processors begins to peak, and each upgrades is basically a few ticks, then developers will have to create things for the systems that is out , not a system that will be out in a year.
When this happens*(and it will) software will enter a golden age.
Of course, someone could come up with completly different technolgy and make current procs. irrelevant..
*
There are many factors coming to light that are already slowing down proc development. Die limitations, noise limitations, bus size limitation, to just name a few. Don't confuse practicallity with theory.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I saw one of Dell's laptop commercials and the only processor options it stated were AMDs single and double core Turion. They are getting a little PR at least.
Considering they are doing so well without any form of mass attention tells me they really could deal a major blow to Intel if they advertised.
Then again, the shock value of telling people I use AMD is like telling them about my Fiero. "Wtf is AMD/Fiero?". ^_^
I'm going to ask:
That's great and all, but does it run Linux?
I'm not kidding, either. Is AMD going to force ATI to open up its specs and its drivers so that we can FINALLY get stable and FULLY functional drivers for Linux, or are they still going to be partially-implemented limited-function binary blobs where support for older-yet-still-in-distribution-channels products will be phased out in order to "encourage" (read: force) customers to upgrade to new hardware, discarding still-current computers?
That is why I do not buy ATI products any more. They provide ZERO VIVO support in Linux, They phase out chip support in drivers even while they are actively distributed. They do not maintain compatibility of older drivers to ensure they can be linked to the latest kernels.
This is why I went Core 2 Duo for my new system and do not run AMD - their merger with ATI. My fear is that if ATI rubs off on AMD then support for AMD processors and chipsets will only get worse, not better.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
From what I understand (and I could be wrong), AMD/ATI is aiming more at the GPGPU market. So we're talking more of a suped up altivec processor in the CPU instead of a full blown GPU. It sounds like the're simply adding a 64 pipleline vector processor to the existing x86-64 core. I'm not sure if this is a bad idea.
I remember programming assembly graphics code in BASIC back in the day. You would set the VGA card to mode 13h and then write to...what was it now...0xa00? That's probably wrong. Anyway, whatever your wrote to that portion of memory would go to the screen.
If you had a huge SIMD co-processor, would it not be possible to rival modern GPUs with this model? Not to mention being able to do some cool stuff like having a video input card dump data driectly into that portion of the screen. So you could have video in with the CPU at complete idle.
Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
My people are reading this as an integrated GPU and CPU. I don't see it that way. I see it as adding a generic vector processor to the CPU. Similar to the Cell processor and similar to future plans Intel has described. Vector processors are similar to SSE, 3DNow, etc. They are SIMD processors that can execute very regular mathematical computations (Video and audio encoding/decoding) VERY quickly, but aren't much good for generic algorithms.
The people claiming this will fail all seem to miss the market this is aimed at. It's obviously not intended to compete with the high-end, or even middle of the road graphics processor. Those boards require gobs of VERY fast video memory. My guess is this thing is aimed at a space between the on-board video (which are really just 2-d chips) and the full 3-d graphics card. Anyone buying this has no intention of buying a super-duper
With Vista coming out soon, PC-makers are going to want a low-cost 3-d accelerated solution to be able to run some (or maybe all) of the eye-candy that comes with vista.
AccountKiller
I hope they integrate enough memory. The GPU of 2012 will needs quick fast guaranteed (not shared) access to about 4GB of texture memory to render the environments and character avatars for games of future (ie, about 8 times the amount the Xbox 360 shares for graphic and computing).
post wha1 is? nutteR bunny funyon
I'll buy this is they provide free drivers; I won't buy it if they don't. Vista's piggish graphics will surely push all GPU's to new performance levels. I don't care about on-chip integration nearly as much as I care about avoiding the need to use binary blobs in my free OS.
Let's hope this fusion doesn't bomb.
How about this: http://www.tomshardware.com.tr/business/20050428/i mages/amd-ferrari.jpg
http://www.adm02.com/Marketer/AMD/AMD_Opteron_News letter_july/Archives_april_files/ferrari.jpg
http://www.pcinpact.com/images/bd/news/10535.jpg
This is an EXPENSIVE marketing campaign...
AMD will be making razors and shave gel? Sweet! How many blades, 4, 5 or scalable on demand?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Great idea on paper. It boils down to personnel though. You're talking about fusing development teams with experience. Will they work together well? Or will the elevator assets go work for someone else, leaving the understudies to bicker about with an ignoramus boss unable to figure out which engineers are clever and which are just suckups?
I'm not saying it won't work; I'm saying that fusing development teams with expertise is a lot different than fusing different components onto the same board. And that, in turn, is a lot different than a multi-option fuze.
...the CELL processor. Whoulda thunk it?
I know the trend is single socket multi core but with the gpu embedded dual and quad sockets instead of sli!
bite my glorious golden ass.
This will lead to a whole new world of disgustingly bad graphics chips eating system RAM and claiming to have "256MB" or whatever but really having little or none and just munching on (slow) system memory as needed... and that never works as well as it should.
-----------------------------------------
Remove the Greed which plagues mankind.
How about getting those lightning fast matrix operations onto the CPU? I always hear about people building application-specific tweaks by reprogramming their algorithm into a shader language. I imagine that there is far more fertile soil for innovation here than some lame combined C/GPU.
Ironically the big merger-of-companies graphics project between GigaPixel and 3Dfx was called Fusion. Would have been a kick-ass chip too, had 3DFX had the guts to cancel Rampage and throw everything behind the new project. Ah well, most of us are nvidians now...
I just bought a cpu/mobo combo with open source support for 2-3D acceleration under Linux out of the box. It has an Intel G965 chipset.
Show your support. Buy one too.
They are also look at this as well. Maybe even some kind of an super cross fire / sli with build in cpu video graphics processing + video in the slot with it's own graphics processing and ram also you may be able to 2 video cards linked as well.
Amd 4x4 systems may be able to have 4 video cards + 2 cpus with graphics processing in them.
If I were in charge, I'd probably drop the Celeron as the low cost alternative and just push AMD's.
You'd want to make sure this move wouldn't make people equate AMD with Celeron performance. I wouldn't want AMD to be seen as a Celeron replacement.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/11/20061116133 114.shtml
I would think such a design would be a great chip for laptops, minis, iMacs and iTV!
Unfortunately there are some programs that do require Intel CPUs to work or to enabled accelerated mode. I recall my friend talking about some video editor program that required Intel P4 to work and did warn you about this fact when you tried to install it to a AMD machine.
Also I think the Intel C-compiler only enableds MMX/SSE/SSE2 etc support on Intel CPUs, thus making the programs slower on AMD unless you patch the binery to bypass the CPU check.
- Raynet --> .
In it not clearly stated WHAT and HOW AMD will intergrate on 1 single chip.
It could be, as you assume, a cheap graphic card, something similar to the intel chipsets that integrate some lowend 3D graphics.
It could also be some 3D geometry unit. A specialised vector engine that could be used for geometry, physics, or general-purpose GPU programming. Which will be more like the AMD's answer to Cell processor.
In which case a fusion chip will still be used together with specialised GFX cards. But vector calculation that aren't texture related could be tken care of by the Fusion unit.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]