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! :-)
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
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
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.
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
Integrating the GPU with the CPU will be about driving down cost and power consumption, not something that is usually a high-priority for folks that want to run the latest greatest games and get all the shiniest graphics. So, I'd be very surprised if this is intended to hit that part of the market, more likely it's designed to address the same market segment that Intel hits with graphics embedded in the CPU's supporting chipset.
That said, having the CPU & GPU combined (from the point of view of register and memory access etc) might open up some interesting new possibilities of using the the power of the GPU for certain non-graphic functions.
Back in the day at Intergraph we had a graphics processor that could be combined with a very expensive (and for the time powerful) dedicated floating point array processor. To demonstrate the power of that add-on somebody handcoded an implementation of the Mandelbrot Fractal algorithm on the add-on and it was blistering fast. I can imagine similar highly-parallelized algorithms doing very well on a GPU/CPU combo.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
Any kind of integration tends to improve power efficiency just because of the high capacitance of the PCB traces. This makes it difficult to route a PCB for high-speed inter-chip communications never mind getting multiple 2.5Gb/s (PCIe) signal traces through a connector. All this requires large driver cells to drive off-chip communication and these use a great deal of power (and moderate area) on chip. Reducing the noise floor of your signals (by keeping them on chip) also gives you more headroom for voltage reductions in your digital hardware. All in all it makes it a much better picture overall for power efficiency. But dissipating power from these new chips will still be a headache for CPU package designers and systems guys alike.
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.
You're talking about the high-end "do everything you can" GPUs... ATI is dominating the (discrete) mobile GPU industry because their mobile GPUs use so little power. Integrating (well) one of those into a CPU should still result in a low-power chip.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.