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."
.. 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.
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
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 ?
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
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
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
Yeah, but the heatsink for the processor/graphics card combo system will be righteous.
Frankly, I'm betting this is going to turn out more like the next generation of integrated video. Basically, the only "fusion" chips you'll see will be ones designed for small/cheap boxes that people never upgrade the components on. I'm betting the graphics in general will be slow and the processor will be average. Super fast processors and fast graphics won't get the fusion treatment because the people who buy them tend to want to keep them separate (for upgrading later), not to mention the difficulty you'd have powering and cooling a chip that complex.
I read the internet for the articles.
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
You assume that this would do away with video cards; there's not a chance of that happening any time soon. As I said in another thread, it'd be quite simple for AMD to disable the on-chip video in favor of a detected add-in card.
Right now I'm buying a $200 vidcard every 18-24 months. I'm looking at probably getting my next one middle of next year, around the same time I replace my motherboard, CPU, and RAM. My current system is struggling with the Supreme Commander beta and upcoming games like Crysis should be equally taxing on it. In the past six years, I've bought three CPU upgrades. If AMD could market a $300 chip that gave me a CPU and GPU upgrade with similar performance and stay on the same socket for 3-4 years, I'd be breaking even.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
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.
One thing to consider is that right now its getting pretty easy to have "enough" RAM for 99% of all users. I mean, if you get a new machine today that had 1.5-2.0gb in it, the odds of even wanting to upgrade would be slim to none. The fact is that most people live quite reasonably with 256-512mb right now, and will never upgrade. Note: most /. readers != most people. For modern machines if you're not running anything more brutal than Office, having a gig permanently attached would probably make sense for most people who would be using an integrated graphics type of system.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!