Graphics-Enabled CPUs To Take Off In 2011

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Graphics-Enabled CPUs To Take Off In 2011

Posted by timothy on Thursday March 17, 2011 @09:32PM from the in-my-day-we-had-integrated-graphics dept.

angry tapir writes "Half the notebook computers and a growing number of desktops shipped in 2011 will run on graphics-enabled microprocessors as designers Intel and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) increase competition for the units that raise multimedia speeds without add-ons. The processors with built-in graphics capabilities will be installed this year on 115 million notebooks, half of total shipments, and 63 million desktop PCs, or 45 percent of the total, according to analysts."

129 of 172 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:While APU's definitely have their place... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 21:49 · Score: 1

Nope, that was 1911.
Re:But not for workstation laptops by bemymonkey · 2011-03-17 21:55 · Score: 1

Optimus, or some other form of switchable graphics.
Supercomputing by louic · 2011-03-17 22:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

Depending on how exactly these processors will look like, they may be very interesting for speeding up scientific computations. The fastest computer in the world at this moment is already GPU based, and such a CPU/GPU hybrid can possibly be even more efficient by removing the slow communication between CPU and GPU.
1. Re:Supercomputing by nzac · 2011-03-17 22:19 · Score: 2
  
  The point of GPU super computer is to have a lot of cores working at a slow speed most GPUs in the hybrids only have a small am amount of cores mine has 80. The point the hybrids is to be able to include low power graphics without the need for extra hardware thus reducing cost.
  GPU clusters or just stand alone GPUs would like to have as many cores as possible compared to the rest of the machine. To achieve this effectively you want to buy a somewhat bear bones system and stick some cost effective high end GPUs with cooling in it.
  Buying hybrids would mean that as you pay more you would likely get an improved GPU and CPU when the extra CPU is redundant. Plus it makes it much harder to keep booth cool.
2. Re:Supercomputing by CastrTroy · 2011-03-18 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  It used to be the case on the 386 that the FPU was a separate chip you could get and plug into the motherboard, much like the GPUs of today. It seems obvious that it would simplify a lot of things to just put the GPU directly on the processor.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
3. Re:Supercomputing by blahplusplus · 2011-03-18 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest problem is memory bandwidth. GPU's are fast because of their high throughput, the problem is CPU's won't ever have enough memory on die to keep up despite the communications. It's a trade off. I remember Mark rein of epic games saying on-die CPU's would kill video cards but they never did, because most people don't understand that performance is about trade offs.
4. Re:Supercomputing by TheEyes · 2011-03-18 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  The GPU in Intel's i5 sucks. As in, even with the reduced CPU/GPU latency, it provides performance equivalent to a mid-range, 3 year old graphics card. Fine for desktop applications, web browsing, and email. Not useful for video processing and definitely none of the computational advantages of putting a high-speed, massively parallel GPU on a PCI-express bus.
  Not to mention that the current on-die GPUs offered by Intel don't have access to either DX11, PhysX, nor OpenGL 4.0, so they can't be used as computational hardware anyway (AMD's existing and upcoming Fusion products can all use DX 11 and OpenGL 4, though PhysX is still kept tightly under lock by Nvidia). It does, however, have specialized video transcoding hardware, which I guess is more important right now as few things use DX 11/OGL 4's compute shaders, but may be a liability going forward depending on what kinds of programs are written over the next few years.
A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by dicobalt · 2011-03-17 22:07 · Score: 1

Integrated graphics is still integrated graphics. They are still slow, still useless for games (unless you are a self masochist), and still nothing impressive. Effort would be better placed in producing an open system and standards for coding to graphics to hardware directly instead of using flabbly cycle hogging API's. That's why pathetic hardware like the Xbox 360 can do so much with so little. Think of the days of DOS and Commodore 4K graphics demos.
1. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by EzInKy · 2011-03-17 22:14 · Score: 2
  
  Other than a few hard core gamers and graphic artists, discrete graphic cards are a total waste of money for most people.
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
2. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by giuseppemag · 2011-03-17 22:26 · Score: 2
  
  No GPGPU, no accelerated desktop, maybe even problems with higher resolutions. Seems like a problem dressed as a solution to me.
  
  --
  My book: Friendly F#, fun with game development and XNA; my game: Galaxy Wars by VSTeam; my gamedev language: Casanova.
3. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Corporate+Troll · 2011-03-17 22:27 · Score: 2
  
  I realize that Integrated Graphics are sub-par, but to say they're useless for games unless you're a masochist (the "self" is redundant...), is a bit overstating it. Many of us non-gamers do like to play a game from time to time, but we don't want to spend ourself into bankruptcy. Guess, what? This means we buy older games (cheaper!), and from my experience today's integrated graphics (also cheaper!) handle older games perfectly fine.
4. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by hairyfeet · 2011-03-17 22:34 · Score: 2
  
  Actually the AMD IGPs aren't half bad. Sure they'll never beat a discrete but while I was waiting for my discrete to show up I was playing Bioshock, FEAR, Swat 4, L4D, pretty much anything I wanted and that was with last years 4250 onboard. The new APU chips have an HD6xxx IIRC, anywhere from an HD6250 to an HD6550 depending on chip.
  And the reason nobody allows you to write directly to hardware is we already tried that back in the days of DOS. What you ended up with was a single bit of buggy code could take the whole system down with VERY little trouble. Now add in the malware that would be written to try to hide in the GPU, and you'd have a mess.
  The reason you can do that with an X360 OS because it is "DRM...in a box" which means all code is approved by MSFT and no approval? No run. Personally I'd rather NOT have my desktop programs have to be given a seal of approval from MSFT, thank you VERY much. There is a cost to everything, and the cost of having the freedom to run what you want is having to use abstraction since the OS has to have a way to control the program.
  But don't worry I have a feeling you may get to try it that way if you switch to Apple, as I have a feeling OSX will end up being replaced by iOS and the app store. Then you'll only run what Apple approves of and I'm sure that having that level of control will make for faster access. Personally I'll take freedom over speed, thanks anyway.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
5. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Inda · 2011-03-17 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  The integrated graphics on my HP notebook are plenty fast enough to play CIV5.
  
  All these new HTML5 demos run at above 50fps. More than enough.
  
  The HDMI port outputs full 1080p to my plasma TV.
  
  A sibling poster is correct - no one really cares about how many FLOPS a GFX card can handle.
  
  --
  This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
6. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by somersault · 2011-03-17 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell are you talking about? The Xbox 360 uses DirectX just the same as Windows.
  If you could change graphics settings on consoles the same as PCs, you'd probably notice the difference, but I'd assume that playing games on a console is often the equivalent of using "medium" settings on a PC. I say this as someone with both a PS3 and 360, not trying to say that the consoles are inferior in terms of gameplay, just that obviously a modern day PC is going to kick their ass. That's how things work. Consoles come out with competitive graphics, PCs quickly overtake them in capabilities.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
7. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by semi-extrinsic · 2011-03-17 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of it has also to do with an unneccesary demand for ultra-high resolution. Some of my all-time favorite games, like Need for Speed 5 or space-battle-tank-fighter Battlezone, are playable on a netbook with integrated graphics while emulated through Wine. I still prefer them to e.g. the latest Need for Speed, where content and playability has been sacrifized on the altar of cartoon realism and HD/HDR graphics. Hey, EA: I don't enjoy games more if they are ultra-high-def, I enjoy them more if they are fun and challenging to play!
  soapbox->get_off(me);
  
  --
  for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
8. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Kjella · 2011-03-17 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  GPGPU no, but then most users don't do anything computing intense, CPU or GPU. Integrated chipsets handle simple desktop effects quite fine, your FUD is out of date. Problems with higher resolutions? What is this, the 90s?
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
9. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Luckyo · 2011-03-17 23:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I actually can chip on this on a "this is not true" side. My father isn't a gamer by any stretch - the only games he likes to play are various arcanoid derivatives. Which meant that his work laptop served him just fine.
  Then came shatter, and he all but killed me with his "why won't my laptop run this?" questions. Try to explain to someone running the crappy intel 945GM that always ran the old 2d arcanoids that shatter just won't work on it.
  So now, I'm probably giving them my current gaming computer as I upgrade, and I'm pretty sure he'll be telling tech support at work that his next laptop has better include 3d acceleration or else (he's in position to be able to tell them that). So the old saying applies here - you'll be satisfied with integrated, until in comes one killer application that it won't run, and then you aren't. Problem is, with so much software requiring decent 3d graphics on board (even aero does!) you're still best served by a half decent dedicated graphics card that powers itself down when 3d features aren't used or used sparingly.
  Finally there's an issue of quality, and that goes beyond 3d. Most integrated chipsets have clear problems displaying higher resolutions, which is why high resolution laptops generally have a dedicated chipset rather then integrated solution.
10. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by giuseppemag · 2011-03-17 23:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  First of all where would this be FUD? Try connecting a full HD monitor to an integrated Intel GPU and you'll see what I meant.
  
  Also, this bullshit that users don't do computing intense stuff is, well, bullshit. Full HD video, 3D movies, photo processing are computationally intensive even if they are not particularly serious usage of computing power. Don't confuse "important work" with "computationally intensive work".
  
  --
  My book: Friendly F#, fun with game development and XNA; my game: Galaxy Wars by VSTeam; my gamedev language: Casanova.
11. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by CajunArson · 2011-03-17 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  Full HD video --> Works just fine on my 2008 era Intel laptop with integrated video... and I'm using it to drive a 1080p display to show ripped Blu-Rays at full definition on top of a composited KDE desktop.
  
  --
  AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
12. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by mozumder · 2011-03-17 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need a discrete GPU for any of that. They're not even computationally intensive.
  Computationally intensive = 4 hours for a simulation.
13. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Junta · 2011-03-17 23:58 · Score: 2
  
  Not all GPU accelerated desktop is 'fluff', such as expose/compiz scale/kde present windows (particularly the latter with window title search). When I have many windows open, it's a vastly superior way to find what I need than anything else. It could have been done without craphics acceleration, but it's easiest to get large as possible previews of the results of your search this way.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
14. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Corporate+Troll · 2011-03-18 00:05 · Score: 2
  
  Ehm...
  I just checked. Shatter was released in 2010(!) for Windows. The Integrated graphics you mention were released in January 2006. Go and read my comment again: I said, older games on modern-day integrated graphics. I'm pretty sure Shatter will work perfectly fine on my wifes ATI Radeon HD 5750 (iMac bought in fall 2010)... which are the integrated graphics sold these days. Will Shatter work on my 2007 laptop? Can't say, because I can't find system requirements of Shatter. However, the ATI Radeon Xpress 1100 (which is crappy) runs Portal decently. Portal, however is a 2007 video game (Based on the Half-Life 2 engine, released in 2004).
  You pretty much INVERTED my statement: use modern-day games on old integrated graphics.
  I hope you see a problem with that...
  Furthermore: nobody needs Aero... It's useless gimmics and the specs are insanely high for something compiz can do on a Gefore2 MX.
  As for the high resolution comment: I've driven a 1280x1024 screen without a problem with my Asus EEE PC 701 4G. I fail to see how rendering a desktop is hard for those integrated graphics. Perhaps when running a GAME on those resolutions, but nobody in his right mind would do that. Back in the early days of graphics card, what interested you most was to know how much memory it had, because you could calculate how high resolution it would support. Those times are over. Integrated graphics drive two monitors at 1440x900 each just fine. I see that every day at work.
15. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Corporate+Troll · 2011-03-18 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  An Atom 330 with ION chipset (NVidia 9400M, aka integrated graphics) handles Full HD just fine.
16. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by giuseppemag · 2011-03-18 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  Nope: computationally intensive means "slower than instantaneous".
  
  --
  My book: Friendly F#, fun with game development and XNA; my game: Galaxy Wars by VSTeam; my gamedev language: Casanova.
17. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Auroch · 2011-03-18 00:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  My back-of-the envelope calculations tell me that the 9W version is at least as powerful as a low-end Nvidia 400-series or ATI 5000-series
  My back of the envelope memory tells me that all low end 400 series and low end 5000 series "graphics" are actually IGPs as well...
  
  --
  Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
18. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by giuseppemag · 2011-03-18 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly if they do it like ION then there is nothing to fear. If it is another shitty Intel integrated or something like the ancient Radeon IGP then God, please, humanity has been punished enough!
  
  --
  My book: Friendly F#, fun with game development and XNA; my game: Galaxy Wars by VSTeam; my gamedev language: Casanova.
19. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Auroch · 2011-03-18 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  I still prefer them to e.g. the latest Need for Speed, where content and playability has been sacrifized on the altar of cartoon realism and HD/HDR graphics
  Let me tell you, there are way more people addicted to WoW than to nethack and dwarf fortress. I'm not saying one is better than the other for gameplay... but I am saying that gameplay is not the only reason to play. You need to reach a minimum threshold of performance. This APU just upped that threshold.
  
  --
  Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
20. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2011-03-18 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  The target for on die GPUs aren't crysis and call of duty, it's aero and quartz. Which sandy bridge handles very well.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
21. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Bengie · 2011-03-18 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  An Intel Sandy Bridge on integrated graphics is quite snappy. I think you're a generation old on complaining. Next year's Ivy Bridge GPUs will be much stronger and should handle 1080p at ~30fps on most current games. Just make sure you set the quality to low. The current Intel integrated GPUs are getting 45fps in WoW at medium and can even beat nVidia 480 at converting videos.
22. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Luckyo · 2011-03-18 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  Shatter's system requirements were on a level of a 2005 computer at best, which is my point. Specifically my older 2005 bought computer ran it fine on max settings with a barely passable graphics card.
  As for high resolution, 1280x1024 hasn't been "high" for a decade at least. The high resolutions nowadays start at around 1900x1200 and go up from there. My 1680x1050 is average at best nowadays, and in games tends to be the lowest benchmarked resolution.
23. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Corporate+Troll · 2011-03-18 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  The high resolutions you talk about are absolutely non-typical on the range of laptops that do have integrated graphics. Go to your local geek provider and check. Laptops seem to hover around 1366x768. Typical stand alone screen is 1920x1080, simply because of economies of scale on HDTVs. My moms computer (Single core AMD Athlon 64 2800+, 2GB RAM, and.... a Geforce 4400MX, which is for all intents and purposes not better than any IGP these days) drives a 23" 1920x1080 screen just fine.
  In the consumer-end, the standalone screens I see most are 1920x1080 and 1440x900. That's for NEW systems or people who replaced a screen that crapped out.
  More to the point: my wifes iMac is powered by integrated graphics (pretty much everything from Apple is) and drives a 2560x1600 just fine... Incidentally, that resolution is the highest one I can find in my preferred online store at prices most consumers wouldn't spend. So, "start at around 1900x1200" sounds, let's just say a bit exaggerated.
  Might it just be that your fathers laptop had other issues? It wouldn't be the first time that I see people complaining about something not working right and in the end its, either Windows that's really in a bad state, not enough RAM (A 2005 laptop? 512MB RAM... might be an issue, considering Windows XP SP3 pretty much requires 512MB RAM. Swapping takes an insane toll) or a failing harddisk. (Failing harddisk => I had that in my laptop... Ubuntu notified me about it... Replacing the HDD with another one, and suddenly the machine was very responsive again) Finally, even BIOS settings might influence it. In my laptop, there was a "Save Battery" option, disabled by default. I thought it was perhaps a good idea to turn it on. Turns out, it basically locked the CPU into 800MHz. Ooops!
24. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by drinkypoo · 2011-03-18 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell are you talking about? The Xbox 360 uses DirectX just the same as Windows.
  It doesn't use Windows the same as Windows, though; the Xbox 360 OS is based on the Xbox OS which is based on Windows 2000. But it has almost none of the OS present... Which is why you need a quad-core to play Grand Theft Auto when the Xbox 360 has only three. OS overhead.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
25. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by royallthefourth · 2011-03-18 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently you have not used any recent integrated GPU's from AMD. My integrated Radeon 4250 can play Left4Dead 2 at a fine framerate with the settings adjusted appropriately. Accelerated desktops are light duty work. I don't think it'll do OpenCL right now, but AMD is serious about making their integrated graphics better than the barely usable stuff they've been pushing out before; I'm sure future iterations will do all of these things even better than current ones do.
26. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by somersault · 2011-03-18 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Still, it's a far cry from banging directly on the hardware.. they could be doing even more on the Xbox if they were allowed to do that.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
27. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by giuseppemag · 2011-03-18 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I am writing this message on an integrated Radeon, and I am quite happy with it. My fear is that further reduction of power could mean a return to the past, and I've been there and care not to go back :)
  
  --
  My book: Friendly F#, fun with game development and XNA; my game: Galaxy Wars by VSTeam; my gamedev language: Casanova.
28. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Kjella · 2011-03-18 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  No, full HD video is not particularly computing intense with dedicated hardware. The Intel Core i5-2500K decodes 5 simultanious 1080p streams according to Anandtech. Hell it even has HDMI 1.4a and 3D support if you're into that, this is "integrated" performance in 2011. I don't know how intensive Photoshop with thousand layers can get, but simple touchups of photos certainly do fine without a discrete GPU.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
29. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by drinkypoo · 2011-03-18 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  Still, it's a far cry from banging directly on the hardware.. they could be doing even more on the Xbox if they were allowed to do that.
  DirectX is frankly close enough. The version of DirectX was bumped for both systems to permit DirectX developers to take better advantage of the hardware.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
30. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by realityimpaired · 2011-03-18 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  The FUD would be the anecdotal evidence that many have already provided that you're completely and utterly wrong.
  And to add to the anecdotal evidence: I have a 2-year old netbook which is able to handle 1920x1080p through its VGA out port, with a composited desktop and full motion video at that resolution. While I don't use it for intensive gaming, I have played Civ4 and WoW on the netbook at that resolution. While it's not exactly an ideal configuration, both games are playable. When I'm typing up a document in Word, or surfing the web, or working in a spreadsheet, it's plenty adequate. It's even fine playing full screen HD video from Youtube or editing a photo in GIMP.
  The relevant specs of the netbook are as follows:
  Atom N270 (dual core @ 1.6GHz)
  2GB DDR2 memory
  Intel X3100 graphics
  64GB SSD
  OS: Win7 Ultimate
  I use a significantly higher end laptop (Core i7 quad, 4x as much RAM, and a Radeon HD 4870 1GB) for my regular gaming, but the netbook certainly would meet the needs of regular users. Hook it up to a larger external screen, and it's perfect for them. (though when you can buy a 15" laptop for $300 at Wal*Mart, I wouldn't recommend a netbook any more).
  (and if you disbelieve me on the configuration, I will happily make a CPU-Z full report available to you. The only modification I will make is to remove the serial number of my netbook from the report)
31. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Luckyo · 2011-03-18 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  My father had a pre-2000 (year) laptop with native resolution of 1600x1200. From work. with a (iirc) 14" or smaller screen. From business line of DELL's of all places. You must be looking at very cheap low end consumer crap which goes for lowest possible denominator.
  And on the topic of shatter, no. I spent several hours trying to make the damn thing work, down to trying a couple of hacks. Nothing worked. 945GM's implementation of shaders is simply so horrendously bad, it doesn't work. Google was filled with that complaint back when I searched too. In a nutshell, intels' 945GM is a crappy chipset for anything with shaders.
32. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by VGPowerlord · 2011-03-18 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  More to the point: my wifes iMac is powered by integrated graphics (pretty much everything from Apple is)
  You're wrong.
  Speaking as someone who was checking the specs on Apple products last year, the only Apple products that used integrated graphics then were the Mac Mini, Macbook, and Macbook Pro.
  The iMac and Mac Pro all use discrete AMD/nVidia cards/processors.
  The current iMac models have a choice of ATI Radeon HD 4670 256MB, ATI Radeon HD 5670 512MB, or ATI Radeon HD 5750 1GB.
  
  --
  GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
33. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by mordred99 · 2011-03-18 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Now, 1280x1024 might not be "high" as in bleeding edge, however it is still the preferred market for a majority of all companies buying PCs for their employees. If someone runs only to best buy to look at monitors, then fine. Most corporate environments have their PCs in a 4:3 ratio and 1280x1024 is a good size for a 19" monitor. Anyone doing spreadsheets and excel/word all day should be fine with that. They are cheap and work. So what you are doing is making your arguement for approx 50% or less of the market right now.
34. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by zach_the_lizard · 2011-03-18 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't used Photoshop since about 2005-2006, but I don't recall it ever using the GPU. Has this changed?
  
  --
  SSC
35. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by marcosdumay · 2011-03-18 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  "Full HD video, 3D movies, photo processing are computationally intensive"
  
  Full HD video isn't computationaly intensive if you have specialized hardware, and isn't even practical if you do on a general porpose GPU. The same applies to 3D movies (displaying them, not rendering).
  Now, photo processing... That was quite heeavywork for the hardware available at the late 90's. Today we do it at portable devices.
  Yet, lots of people do computationaly intensive things. Mainly gamming.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
36. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Corporate+Troll · 2011-03-18 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, my father had one of these too. 4:3 relation, see.. Try even finding that these days. I was looking at the consumer end (and I have been saying that from the beginning) Incidentally, I am responsible for buying laptops at my company and yes, we go with Dell. The Latitude series, which is their business range. Let me check, we want a typical 15" or so? Hmmm, lessee... E6520 (which is one of the biggest models), highest resolution available: 1920x1080. I'm not sure, you realize that, but a 1920x1080 is just 8% larger than that 1600x1200 our dads had years ago and are unfindable now. (Never mind that vertical space is worth much more while working that horizontal space)
  I truly ask you where those 2560x1600 laptops you seem to find, because I most certainly don't find anything beyond 1920x1200.... And, again: modern day IGPs drive those just fine for desktop usage!
  Basically your gripe is with the 945GM, which is one of the worst from Intel... and only because of that you're not even considering that the newer offerings (todays IGPs) or that Non-Intel offerings of the day may be adequate. Your information on integrated graphics is severely out of date and tainted by one of the worst graphics chipset in existence.
37. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by realityimpaired · 2011-03-18 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  You know damned well that it's usually I/O throughput, not processor power, that prevents things from loading or displaying instantaneously. "computationally intensive" means it'll peg one or more cores, not that you'll wait a couple of seconds while your operating system accesses the information it needs from a hard drive.
  For casual use like surfing the web, writing up a document in a word processor, or playing some stupid flash game on Facebook, it's quite possible to get by with a 1.6GHz netbook without pegging a core.
38. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Corporate+Troll · 2011-03-18 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  You mean, I can go out and buy a new graphics card for my wifes iMac? As in an NVidia PCIe based, one? Integrated graphics mean just that: integrated in the motherboard. I just clicked on the link you gave, chose the 27" model for buying and expected to get a presented with a choice of ATI... Well, it doesn't... There is no choice, which suggests heavily that it isn't some daughterboard, but integrated on the motherboard.... IPG... Case closed.
39. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Dog-Cow · 2011-03-18 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  I have a 5+ year old Macbook (not Pro) with GMA950 graphics. It plays WoW just fine and I routinely watch DVDs full-screen on an external 27" 1920x1200 display.
  I think you're full of shit.
40. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Sectoid_Dev · 2011-03-18 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Or you could buy a $50 graphics card that would blow away your onboard integrated graphics.
  I'm still happy with my Nvidia 8800 & 9800 cards, though I didn't buy them for $50 at the time.
  Fallout 3 runs fine on the 9800 and the 8800 is over kill for what I use it for, but it's nice to be able to support many open windows.
41. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by VGPowerlord · 2011-03-18 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  You mean, I can go out and buy a new graphics card for my wifes iMac? As in an NVidia PCIe based, one? Integrated graphics mean just that: integrated in the motherboard. I just clicked on the link you gave, chose the 27" model for buying and expected to get a presented with a choice of ATI... Well, it doesn't... There is no choice, which suggests heavily that it isn't some daughterboard, but integrated on the motherboard.... IPG... Case closed.
  Sadly, no. The graphics cards are a separate card, but not a standard PCIe card. Instead, the iMac uses a Mobile PCI Express Module (MXM) with a custom Mac firmware.
  Unfortunately, the Mac firmware is the biggest dealbreaker here, as it makes it nearly impossible to swap out unless you get a new card that already has Mac firmware or has a hacked firmware installed that OSX recognizes.
  
  --
  GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
42. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Corporate+Troll · 2011-03-18 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, I see... IGP means to you that it has dedicated memory, according to wikipedia, that's even correct.
  Personally, we bought that iMac mainly for surf-duty, and I never intensively studied its graphics capacities. I am surprised to learn it has its own graphics memory. Good, I'm wrong on that... Still, I doubt that a ATI Radeon HD 4200 (which definitely is an integrated graphics chipset) couldn't drive a 256x1600 screen... Yup, it can... : "Primary supports 18-, 24-, and 30-bit digital displays at all resolutions up to 1920x1200 (single-link DVI) or 2560x1600 (dual-link DVI) "
43. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Corporate+Troll · 2011-03-18 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  I agree completely... IF you need the power, THEN you need to go that way. You see, that's where all these anti IGP people are erring. Those 50€ more, are 50€ I'd rather spend on something that important to me. You see, why would I spend 50€ more for something I will not use... ever... I don't game, the IGP of a laptop is usually matched to its screen size for normal usage, and desktop effects (if you really want any) can be done with modern entry-level-IGPs.
  Of course, you are talking a desktop... when you have the extra flexibility. Start off with the IGP and if you really do discover that it's not enough, plunk down 50€ and be done with it... Or 500€, doesn't matter as you will be buying a PCIe card anyway and you can (somehow) justify spending money on the performance
  
  but it's nice to be able to support many open windows.
  I'm confused. In what way does the number of windows you can have open on your desktop relates to the hardware capacities of your graphics card?!? The only way I see is resolution, and modern IGP run high resolutions quite fine.
44. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Corporate+Troll · 2011-03-18 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  I hope you saw the post about me admitting being wrong about the fact that the iMacs graphics card is not an IGP. I really thought it was, because I didn't realize it had dedicated memory.
  Yes, I know, someone admitting on slashdot he's wrong... The riders on the apocalypse are in sight.
45. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by VGPowerlord · 2011-03-18 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  I hope you saw the post about me admitting being wrong about the fact that the iMacs graphics card is not an IGP.
  
  I didn't see it before writing my reply. Slashdot unhelpfully doesn't show posts at the same level as the one you're currently viewing, only its children.
  
  --
  GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
46. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Luckyo · 2011-03-18 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  I think the argument has gone a bit off track here. I was talking about laptop IGPs being bad for even basic modern programs that use shaders, and low quality when you hook up to a desktop "high resolution" monitor and barely tolerable on modern LCD laptop's own screen (typically RAMDAC problems on VGA output handling high resolutions awfully). I concede that you're most likely correct with reasonable resolutions you've mentioned.
  Notably the main reason why laptop's own native resolutions haven't really gone up is form factor. I had to mess around with aforementioned dell quite a bit because my father used to complain about headache (and I was an 18-year-old guy who liked to play with computers), and ended up essentially increasing all font sizes as well as changing them to bold which ended up helping. Essentially it makes no sense to make a 1600x1200 sub 17" screen (imho), or anything bigger then 1080p really, because you'll end up increasing font sizes to compensate anyway or have a huge headache from having your eyes read the small text. That said, 1280x1024 for a 19" sounds pretty horrible for productivity.
  It is possible that modern IGPs on laptops have made significant leaps. Upon reading on sandy bridge features (which is what discussed in OP) I'm very much doubtful as they look extremely basic and the main advantage of mating them with a CPU on same die is in speed, rather then redeeming features. Most benchmarks seem to back it up so far.
47. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Corporate+Troll · 2011-03-18 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  My dad insisted using it on native resolution (1600x1200) and 96dpi. I had more trouble at reading the screen than he did... old hawk :-P
  I think we just need to agree to disagree. I don't think that current IGPs fail when using basic modern programs (Meaning, Aero/Compiz. I don't know of any "basic" program requiring a 3D graphics card except those) and do "high resolution" (Which I will define now as Full HD, which is the most common you'll find) output. In the thread you'll find plenty people defending that stance.
  You prefer non IGP? Fair enough. I don't need it and I'd rather spend the saved money on something that has value to me.
  I'd gladly try out Shaker on my 01/2007 laptop and get back to you.... If you want, I just won't spend money on it... I'd be very surprised if it didn't work adequately.
48. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Corporate+Troll · 2011-03-18 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  Shatter, not Shaker... Sorry.
49. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Daniel+Phillips · 2011-03-18 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC, AMD's Zacate fusion chips have 80 stream processors, same as the 4350 I normally develop for (because it is fanless and quiet). The GPU is connected to the CPU by a bus with (I think this is right) 2 ns latency, put that in your pipe at smoke it.
  The writing is very clearly on the wall for integrated vs discrete.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
50. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Daniel+Phillips · 2011-03-18 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Try connecting a full HD monitor to an integrated Intel GPU and you'll see what I meant.
  I have a machine set up that way right now, with a pathetic 945 chipset driving a 1920 x 1600 display at full resolution. It's amazing how much 3D framerate I can coax out of it, provided I stick to what works nicely in its fixed function pipeline. That was my 3D development box for years. We are talking Pentium M here. A Zacate chip consuming significantly less power will blow that right out of the water.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
51. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by Zuriel · 2011-03-18 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  I think WoW has very low-end graphics.
  WoW's graphics scale more than any other game I've seen. Set the detail settings all the way up and it can bring quite powerful systems to their knees... or set them all the way down and it can run on a non-Ion Atom netbook. Badly, but it does run.
52. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-03-18 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  BS. Few people need or use GPGPU, any modern integrated GPU will accelerate the desktop, and very few need anything beyond resolutions offered by a 30" monitor.
53. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-03-18 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  You're so entirely full of shit. Full HD monitor? What the hell kind of 2007 integrated chipset are you talking about? Basically every point you're making is nonsense. Integrated GPUs are an issue for gamers (medium to hard core), special cases like multiple monitors, and for GPGPU - all except for gamers rare.
54. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by X0563511 · 2011-03-18 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Just make sure you set the quality to low.
  
  Unacceptable. If it cannot handle mid to high settings, do not want.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
55. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by objectdisoriented · 2011-03-18 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  My copy of CS5 uses the my 5670's GPU, and it took a while to get used to. You never see a progress bar, even when processing my wifes 20+ megapixel camera. Scary fast.
  
  --
  Performance must be inherent in every aspect of the system. It is not an afterthought, but always thought. - me
56. Re:A GPU by any other name would render as slowly by badkarmadayaccount · 2011-03-18 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  Code to the standard and submit your whole game as a test case for the relevant bug.
  
  --
  I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Round and round it goes. by kvezach · 2011-03-17 22:08 · Score: 2

And the wheel of reincarnation turns another step.
Reduces the load on the motherboard by satuon · 2011-03-17 22:10 · Score: 2

One of the good things about having the GPU integrated in the processor chip itself is you don't have to go through the bus, so this reduces latency and leaves more bandwidth for everything else.
1. Re:Reduces the load on the motherboard by EzInKy · 2011-03-17 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  And this effects grandma checking her email how? Now that computers are main stream and smart phones nearly so, what difference does it make to the average user if his email loads in 2 seconds or 3?
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
2. Re:Reduces the load on the motherboard by smelch · 2011-03-18 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I know this one! 1 second.
  
  --
  If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Overheating already... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 22:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

...CPU handling the graphics in laptops is already causing overheating issues.
Two cases in point, a Toshiba laptop with AMD and a 13" MacBook Pro with Intel, the fans run annoyingly at high speed, the bottoms are hot enough to fry eggs on. That's just sitting with one web page open. How long can one expect machine like that to last? A year? two maybe?
Are web pages going to suddenly tone down their act, quit using video, animation, Flash? Text and pictures only? If they do that, then what? Hardware makers only start making laptops that can handle web text?
Dedicated graphics is the way to go, CPU and graphics on separate dies away from each other, separate the heat sources.
I can just imagine the scene where a bunch of power hungry types just made the decision to move towards integrated graphics, and a highly intelligent engineer just stomping out of the boardroom in protest.
1. Re:Overheating already... by Corporate+Troll · 2011-03-17 22:42 · Score: 1
  
  How long can one expect machine like that to last? A year? two maybe?
  Heh.... Don't you think you just put your finger on the whole point? Computers are strong enough (most people really overestimate their real needs, and think they really do need that i7, if the Core2Duo would have overkill already.) and have been, for I dare to say, the last 6 years. I use today a machine I bought in january 2007 and it was one on sale, to get rid of it before the Vista release. So it was already bottom-line back then. It's purring along, doing exactly what it needs to do even now.
  That's 4 years functional and no sign of stopping to work. My brother uses a dumpster sourced laptop, from around 2003. Works perfectly fine and unlike mine it doesn't heat up at all.
  So there are two main reasons to buy computers these days: because you want to... or to replace a defective one. Unless a gamer (and other niche usages), the "want to" group doesn't seem to be very large. From a business perspective, making laptops fail earlier is a good business choice.
2. Re:Overheating already... by digitalhermit · 2011-03-18 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  I admire that you continue to use older hardware... If it works then so much better for the environment...
  But I've noticed that I really appreciate the extra horsepower. Between work, non-work and play, having a fast processor, gobs of memory and great graphics is really nice. For work, I run a VMWare virtual machine so when I connect to the VPN I don't lost my local connectivity. Within that VM need to run compiles, Lotus Bloats, Word, etc.. For my non-work, I run some pretty hefty graphics and finance calculations (image stitching, video editing with effects, etc.). Play includes some graphics intensive games. Before I used to have a desktop system, but really love being able to plunk down at a local coffee shop and do all the same things.
3. Re:Overheating already... by Corporate+Troll · 2011-03-18 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  We're on slashdot. I am not surprised in any way that I'll find people who need extra power.
  At work, I do have a better machine even that on todays standards it's still low end (Core2Duo, 4GB RAM, NVidia Quadro, got it new when I started here 2 years ago), but I also run Linux and not Windows. That makes a world in resource usage. Yes, and I do run a few VMs too. Graphics usage, however, limit themselves to compiz and the occasional Flash Game.
  For non-work, well, I do basically the same... Which is run Linux and sometimes a few VMs. Sure with the 2GB RAM, I have in my personal laptop, I have to limit myself to two VMs, but it works fine. I played (and finished) World Of Goo on that machine, worked fine, but that's really about the maximum needs in the graphics department.
  I also admit that I am a dumpster diver by passion and have fun at making my hardware last as much as possible saving money in the long run. Thing is, I can do exactly what you do: put myself in a coffee shop and do whatever I'd do at home. Difference is that we have different usage patterns. Now, the question here is: which usage pattern of us to is closer to the usage pattern of the normal user. I don't know...
4. Re:Overheating already... by Tolleman · 2011-03-18 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  If the actual laptop gets hot the paste has done its job. If the CPU is hot but the heatsink isn't. The paste hasn't done its job.
5. Re:Overheating already... by Waccoon · 2011-03-18 07:35 · Score: 1
  Two cases in point, a Toshiba laptop with AMD and a 13" MacBook Pro with Intel, the fans run annoyingly at high speed, the bottoms are hot enough to fry eggs on. That's just sitting with one web page open.
  This tells me a few things:
  
  - The laptops were not built correctly with an appropriately sized heat sink.
  - Web developers still haven't figured out how to use wait states.
  - Web browsers haven't, either.
  I don't think discrete graphics chips are going to solve any of these problems.
6. Re:Overheating already... by grqb · 2011-03-18 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  "Two cases in point, a Toshiba laptop with AMD and a 13" MacBook Pro with Intel, the fans run annoyingly at high speed, the bottoms are hot enough to fry eggs on. That's just sitting with one web page open. How long can one expect machine like that to last? A year? two maybe?"
  This is an exaggeration...my 13" MacBook Pro doesn't get hot or have the fans turn on with a single web page, nor does this happen while browsing the web/watching youtube.
7. Re:Overheating already... by thegarbz · 2011-03-18 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  Basic thermodynamics says that the heat dissipation requires heatsinks. Whether we are talking 2 heatsinks connected via heatpipes to a heatsink and fan, or one larger heatsink connected to a fan the thermal dissipation is the same. There's potential for even lower combined heat output if the GPU and the CPU share a common chip as the number of ancillary circuits (power management etc) will be reduced.
Toshiba AC100 Nvidia Tegra smartbook by migla · 2011-03-17 22:13 · Score: 1

This is ontopicish, isn't it? And it's all ready out there. (Hasn't probably "taken off" (depending on the definition of that), though...)
I'd love to have a Toshiba AC100 smartbook with an Nvidia Tegra ARM cpu. Capable of HD output, 9 h battery (on lighter usage IIRC). About 800 grams. Runs Android, but an Ubuntu port is progressing, from what I can tell.

--
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
1. Re:Toshiba AC100 Nvidia Tegra smartbook by Tapewolf · 2011-03-17 22:36 · Score: 2
  
  I have one. The main problems with it are that in Android, there is a certain lack of applications I need (can't seem to find a decent text editor / wordprocessor, for one).
  Under Linux, you get all the software (Pidgin, proper text editors with undo and stuff, GIMP and so on) and it's handy for playing with ARM ports of software, but the battery life is only about 3.5 hours. If you want to keep Android there it has to run off the SD card, which is very slow, even with a class 10 card. I might try installing on the machine's internal flash, though - see if that is quicker or less power-hungry.
  On mine, I actually disabled the graphics acceleration in Ubuntu - it tended to leave it a little unstable, but it also stopped the VT switching from working, which I didn't like.
  Also it is worth mentioning that the 2.2 update did bad things to the bootloader and prevented linux from booting either. It took a bit of fiddling before I was able to reinstall the 2.1 bootloader and I still haven't repaired android after that.
  In summary, it's a nice little machine, but I found Android too limiting and linux isn't really mature on this platform yet. With some kind of extended battery it would kick ass, though.
2. Re:Toshiba AC100 Nvidia Tegra smartbook by Auroch · 2011-03-18 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  The main problems with it are that in Android, there is a certain lack of applications I need (can't seem to find a decent text editor / wordprocessor, for one).
  Good thing you can compile one yourself!
  
  --
  Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
3. Re:Toshiba AC100 Nvidia Tegra smartbook by Tapewolf · 2011-03-18 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  Good thing you can compile one yourself!
  The NDK doesn't really allow access to the UI and writing one from scratch in Java was not a prospect I really fancied. It was easier to just stick Linux on it.
  I hadn't considered the possibility of QT on Android, though - an android build of Kate would be ideal. Wouldn't help with GIMP or Pidgin, mind.
The more things change... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-17 22:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Way back near the dawn of time, Intel created the 8086, and its slightly less capable little brother, the 8088. And they were reasonable processors ... but although they were good at arithmetic, it was within tight constraints. Fractions were just too hard. Trigonometry sent the poor little souls into a spin. And so on.
And thus, the 8087 was born. It was able to carry the burden of floating point mathematical functions, thereby making things nice and fast for those few who were willing to pony up the cash for the chip.
Then out came the 80286 (let's forget about the 80186, it's not really all that relevant here). It was better at arithmetic than the 8086, but still couldn't handle floating point - so it had a friend, the 80287, that filled the same purpose for the 80286 as the 8087 did for the 8086 and 8088. (We'll blithely ignore Weitek's offerings here. They existed. They're not really germane to the discussion.)
Then the 80386. Much, much better at arithmetic than the 80286, but floating point was still an Achilles heel - so the 80387 came along for the ride.
And finally, the i486. By this stage, transistors had become small enough that Intel could integrate the FPU on die - so there was no i487. At least, not until they came out with the i486SX, which I'll blithely ignore. And so, an accelerator chip that was once hideously expensive and used only by a few who really needed it was integrated onto chips that everybody would buy.
Funnily enough, it was around the time that the i486 appeared that graphics accelerators came onto the scene - first for 2D (who remembers the Tseng Labs W32p?), and then for 3D. Expensive, used only by a few who could justify the cost ... is this starting to sound familiar to you?
So another cycle is beginning to complete, and more functionality that used to be discrete is now to be folded onto the CPU. I can't help but wonder ... what will be next?
1. Re:The more things change... by ledow · 2011-03-17 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  Whereas your post was the height of eloquence and supremely succinct. I actually prefer the OP. At least it's *worth* reading.
2. Re:The more things change... by Auroch · 2011-03-18 00:18 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  When I read your post, I used the voice of Zapp Brannigan inside my head. You are a tedious blowhard who likes the sound of his own voice.
  GPUs being integrated into CPUs mirror the situation of FPUs being integrated into CPUs in the 90s.
  There you go, 17 words, point made.
  ABLAH BLAH BLAH what I assume is esoteric knowledge that makes me look clever ABLAH BLAH BLAH things that everyone who reads slashdot already knows ABLAH BLAH BLAH overuse of the phrase "blithely ignore" just to make sure everyone sees that I know some other irrelevant facts ABLAH BLAH BLAH trite observation that is the first thing to occur to anyone when hearing that GPUs are being integrated into CPUs BLAH BLAH FUCKING BLAH.
  When I read your post, I used the voice of Zapp Brannigan inside my head.
  
  --
  Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
3. Re:The more things change... by jefe7777 · 2011-03-18 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  When I read the history post, it had Yoda's voice. Then I read your post, and it was a dismissive, whiney, Skywalker voice. Then you went into the Dagobah Cave Tree and cut your own head off.
4. Re:The more things change... by mordred99 · 2011-03-18 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with a majority of your points, however there are a few that I would like to accentuate/comment on. First off most corporate customers, which count on 50% of all PC sales, pretty much don't care about what video cards there are. Will it allow them to webex, spreadsheets, training videos, etc. That is all that they need. They don't need top of the line, and if they can get by with a few year old graphics card on the die, that will work. The people who care are those that are trying to get the advantage in gaming or want to brag they have a lot of money. One other thing, you brought up you have never changed a CPU out of a system. I have, lots of times. The deal was (when I was younger) that I would buy what I could afford, and save up for what I wanted. Then I could sell off what I had. I remember going from a amd k6-200 to a k6-266. That was a huge upgrade at the time and it was $50 for the proc. That is a lot of cheddar when you are lowly college student. So you got what you could afford and upgraded later. Since I have had a job, and been out of school - I have not upgraded a CPU, without just buying a new motherboard/CPU combo. This is more to your point, however to discount the 5% of the population which might/does do this is naive. Every person is different, and that is why the PC market thrives. If you want to buy something, and never change/upgrade, and want it to work forever with no customization .. buy a MAC. Some have customized theirs, but at the end of the day, they make it hard for that very reason. The point of a PC, is that all the parts are customizable, no two systems are identical, and those with know how can tweak something to make them happy.
5. Re:The more things change... by kgeiger · 2011-03-18 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Never second-guess what users "need". Bill Gates famously once said no one would ever need more than 640 KB of memory. DEC's Ken Olsen bet the farm on department servers in the midst of the PC revolution, saying who would want a personal computer? IBM's TJ Watson estimated the world market for computers at five. As Neal Stephenson writes in _The Diamond Age_, there are forgers (technology originators) and honers (incremental, after-market improvers). Honers adapt technology to unforeseen purposes, which in turn drives another cycle of innovation among forgers. And the wheel turns.
  
  --
  Vision with execution is hallucination.
6. Re:The more things change... by GottMitUns · 2011-03-18 03:53 · Score: 2
  
  Memory will be next.
7. Re:The more things change... by Half-pint+HAL · 2011-03-18 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  More importantly - who cares?
  If a PC already has integrated motherboard sound, integrated motherboard Ethernet, integrated motherboard USB, integrated motherboard RAID, etc. then for the most part you won't *care* how the layout is arranged.
  When you buy a laptop, you care about battery life, right? And you care about performance, right?
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
8. Re:The more things change... by spud603 · 2011-03-18 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  So another cycle is beginning to complete, and more functionality that used to be discrete is now to be folded onto the CPU. I can't help but wonder ... what will be next?
  Next is the JSPU, a dedicated chip to speed up javascript performance. It's the future.
Macs using integrated and discrete GPUs ... by perpenso · 2011-03-17 22:26 · Score: 1

Something like the MacBook Pro where there is basic graphics integrated into the CPU (favors power consumption) and optional high end graphics available from a discrete GPU (favors performance)?

"Energy-efficient graphics.
Thanks to the new microarchitecture, the graphics processor is on the same chip as the central processor and has direct access to L3 cache. That proximity translates into performance. The graphics processor also automatically increases clock speeds for higher workloads. An integrated video encoder enables HD video calls with FaceTime, while an efficient decoder gives you long battery life when you’re watching DVDs or iTunes movies.
Up to 3x quicker on the draw. And the render.
When you need more performance for things like playing 3D games, editing HD video, or even running CAD software, the 15- and 17-inch MacBook Pro models automatically switch to discrete AMD Radeon graphics that let you see more frames per second and experience better responsiveness. With up to 1GB of dedicated GDDR5 video memory, these processors provide up to 3x faster performance than the previous generation."
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/performance.html
1. Re:Macs using integrated and discrete GPUs ... by Joce640k · 2011-03-18 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Something like the MacBook Pro where there is basic graphics integrated into the CPU
  The parent said "would make it cheaper"
  
  --
  No sig today...
Re:But not for workstation laptops by somersault · 2011-03-17 22:37 · Score: 1

The Dell XPS 15" has a 1920x1080 option and decent graphics capabilities, with nVidia Optimus which apparently switches between low power and full graphics mode depending on your usage.
Not quite 1200, but for a 15" widescreen, I think any res over 1680x1050 is going to be equivalent, since you'll have to increase font sizes anyway (unless you have some very good eyesight or hunch really close to the screen).

--
which is totally what she said
Re:And the advantage is...? by somersault · 2011-03-17 22:42 · Score: 2

So there will be more computers with crappy integrated graphics. Hopefully, it will still be possible to upgrade them with a decent graphics card.
Yes, and yes.

Oh, and btw, wasn't the plan until recently to basically replace the CPU with the GPU? I'm confused...
No. Graphics Processor Units make very poor Central Processing Units. GPUss work nicely to augment CPUs when doing specialised calculations (encryption, video encoding, physics, etc) that would take the CPU a long time to do on its own, but there are no plans to replace CPUs with GPUs.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:While APU's definitely have their place... by peragrin · 2011-03-17 23:03 · Score: 2

It may not be the year of Linux on the Desktop but it WILL be the Year of the Linux on your Mobile.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:But not for workstation laptops by bemymonkey · 2011-03-17 23:27 · Score: 1

It's a problem, yes. Switchable graphics are just a workaround...
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2011-03-17 23:38 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re:But not for workstation laptops by Joce640k · 2011-03-17 23:40 · Score: 1

Yep. I often need a machine with powerful CPU but don't care about the graphics. It seems like NOBODY makes one. Laptops are a bummer because you can't build your own.

--
No sig today...
Re:Great but I think that it will heat like Hell!! by Joce640k · 2011-03-17 23:42 · Score: 1

Having a low power graphics chip generates more heat??

--
No sig today...
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2011-03-17 23:46 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re:But not for workstation laptops by Nutria · 2011-03-17 23:53 · Score: 1

nVidia Optimus
Doesn't work with Linux...

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Re:But not for workstation laptops by Auroch · 2011-03-18 00:06 · Score: 2

Yep. I often need a machine with powerful CPU but don't care about the graphics. It seems like NOBODY makes one. Laptops are a bummer because you can't build your own.
Really? Because you just described the entire apple PC lineup.

Also, if you can't find it, it sounds like you're not looking. Or, only looking at bestbuy and futureshop. MSI has many models, sony and HP do custom to order (CTO) and asus has so many options I'm surprised they don't confuse customers out of a sale.

It really sounds like you are surprised to find that budget laptops don't come with premium features, like full HD, 1080p screens. So hit up dell and configure one.

--
Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
Re:Great but I think that it will heat like Hell!! by Auroch · 2011-03-18 00:10 · Score: 1

Having a low power graphics chip generates more heat??
It's only low powered when compared to other discrete graphics solutions, not when compared to a bare CPU lacking any integrated GPU function. Yes, they are low power. But only in relative terms, not in absolute ones.

--
Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
Double Obsolescence by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-18 00:10 · Score: 1
As long as they cost less than half of what I'll spend to replace them
- a) when the CPU is outdated
  
  OR
- b) when the graphics are.
1. Re:Double Obsolescence by darkwing_bmf · 2011-03-18 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, if you don't upgrade one or the other on a regular basis you'll likely end up getting both at the same time regardless. I'm not about to use a 2011 cpu with a 2005 gpu or vice versa.
Toshiba AC100 review in theregister.co.uk: 1/10 by IYagami · 2011-03-18 00:12 · Score: 1

http://www.reghardware.com/2010/11/03/review_netbook_toshiba_ac100/
Verdict
The beautifully designed and executed hardware is very close to my ideal netbook, and it's hardly an exaggeration to say that I'm heart-broken by Toshiba's cocked-up Android implementation. The best one can hope for is a firmware rescue from the open source community, although I wonder if the product will stay around long enough in these tablet-obsessed times for that to happen.
Re:And the advantage is...? by petermgreen · 2011-03-18 00:26 · Score: 3, Informative

And the advantage is...?
The advantage of shared memory graphics is reduced cost and power consumption.
The advantage of integrating the memory controller in the CPU is it allows the CPU faster access to memory.
The advantage of reducing the number of high speed chips is reduced cost and power consumption.
So with that in mind lets consider the options for a CPU with an integrated memory controller.
Putting the shared memory graphics on a seperate chip would require a link to the CPU that offered high speed high priority ram access by the GPU and would still leave you with two high speed chips. AMD do this with hypertransport though IIRC they usually have a small ammount of dedicated graphics memory as well to keep the framebuffer traffic off the hypertransport links.
Not offering shared memory graphics at all rules a platform out of the low end market and makes it less than ideal for the business market in general. Intel did this with the nahelm quad and hex core processors and I belive are planning to do the same with the LGA2011 high end sandy bridge chips.
So the natural thing to do is to put the shared memory graphics on the CPU with the memory controller. Intel did this with the dual core nahelm chips and with the LGA1155 mainstream sandy bridge chips.

So there will be more computers with crappy integrated graphics.
Probablly a few more because there were no nahelm quad cores with integrated graphics support. So if you wanted a fast quad core you pretty much had to have discrete graphics as well whether you wanted them or not.
Practically speaking sandy bridge puts things pretty much back the way they were before with the choice of processor core count decoupled from whether to use integrated graphics. It's just those integrated graphics are in the CPU rather than the northbridge. Hopefully this will mean the likes of dell will finally migrate off LGA775.

Oh, and btw, wasn't the plan until recently to basically replace the CPU with the GPU?
GPUs are great at some types of calculation but suck at branch heavy code. So many algorithms have to be completely redesigned to run on them. IIRC in the case of video encoding GPUs can do it quicker but only using cut down encoders that produce lower quality results.
AMD was at one point planning to make units that combined the best of both (note: the fusion name which originally reffered to this is now being used to reffer to CPUs and GPUs on the same die but logcially seperate). Dunno if they still are.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:Great but I think that it will heat like Hell!! by realityimpaired · 2011-03-18 01:26 · Score: 1

And I have an Atom N270-based netbook that, probably 90% of the time, is on passive cooling. It *has* a fan, but that fan is almost never on when all I'm doing is surfing the web, writing a document, or working in a spreadsheet.
Yes, they're going to increase power consumption a little, but you're forgetting how low the power and heat requirements are for these devices in the first place. If the fan has to run 20% of the time instead of 10%, it may shorten the battery life by 30 minutes total, over the course of the 6 hour life that the battery currently has? And that's a 2-year old netbook (Dell Mini 9)... batteries and CPU's have gotten better in the mean time. That's not even considering the power savings from not having to power a discrete (Intel X3100) graphics card... I could actually see a noticeable *increase* in battery life thanks to this.
Re:But not for workstation laptops by Joce640k · 2011-03-18 01:42 · Score: 1

The point being ... we want to pay less. Also, some of us want to run Windows.
"Custom to order" usually isn't as flexible as you might imagine. Go to those websites and try to get a machine with good CPU and 'bad' graphics. ...or a machine with 8Gb RAM with 'bad' graphics (which I tried to do a couple of months ago). I don't need graphics, I've got a pile of graphics cards here and don't need to pay for another one). None of the sites I tried could do that, despite offering "configure it any way you want!" in their adverts.

--
No sig today...
IGP's are sufficient for most games by Troll-Under-D'Bridge · 2011-03-18 02:08 · Score: 1

IGP's are sufficient for most games. Yes, you read that right. IGP's with good drivers are sufficient for playing the games that most people play. These include Flash games (Farmville) and the "demo" games that come with a typical OS installation (Solitaire).
I hate how supposed "gamers" dominate any discussion that remotely has anything to do with computer graphics. Not everybody wants to play Crysis (and I don't even know what that is, without a quick peek at Wikipedia).
Re:But not for workstation laptops by marcosdumay · 2011-03-18 02:13 · Score: 1

"What's a linux? Is that the OS that took the desktop world by storm several years ago?"

It is that OS that people use when they want something more than a toy or text editing.

--
Rethinking email
Re:And the advantage is...? by marcosdumay · 2011-03-18 02:15 · Score: 1

Better yet, if they followed their original plan, you'll be able to use both your crappy integrated GPU and you good plugged GPU at the same time, for solving the same problem.

--
Rethinking email
Ivy Bridge will also have 1gb of graphics memory by ZuchinniOne · 2011-03-18 02:42 · Score: 1

It is very nice to see that competition is pushing the market to get better and better :)
no shit by nickb64 · 2011-03-18 03:02 · Score: 1

most PCs already ship with IGPs, this is the same thing, right? Joe Consumer doesn't know what the hell a graphics card is, or really any other component for that matter. Integrated Graphics is getting better, but 10 x 0 is still 0. All the new architectures coming out are including Graphics on them, so it's obvious that this would take off, given the huge number of PCs that don't ship with dedicated graphics anyway. The average person will pay more for a "better" CPU, even if they don't know what that means, but to them, the concept of a graphics card is too confusing to understand. The fact that the new 13" Macbook Pro is integrated only can only help this trend, because I'm sure that model will get the most sales, it's the first choice of every person I know going into college, as well as being more than adequate for most consumers.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2011-03-18 03:03 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re:But not for workstation laptops by Auroch · 2011-03-18 04:04 · Score: 1

The point being ... we want to pay less.

Don't we all?

Also, some of us want to run Windows.
Not sure that this is a realistic complaint ... most laptops run windows just fine.

"Custom to order" usually isn't as flexible as you might imagine.
Not sure what you mean...

None of the sites I tried could do that, despite offering "configure it any way you want!" in their adverts.
I think you must be trying to CTO a lenovo machine. Because everything else is ... really flexible. Sometimes the online system isn't perfect, but if you call a CSR then can generally do most crazy configs without a problem.

--
Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
Re:But not for workstation laptops by hairyfeet · 2011-03-18 04:05 · Score: 1

So why not look at one of the AMD offerings? The GPU on the AMD side is better anyway and from the sounds of it what you are doing isn't gonna need max performance or you wouldn't be looking at onboard. I recently helped my oldest pick out a nice Turion dual laptop and it runs great, has an HD4250 with 256Mb discrete RAM, and gets around 6 hours on a battery.
Now that the new Bobcat and Bulldozer units are out you'll get even longer battery life and even better graphics since the minimum is an HD6250 APU. Also don't forget Intel has been caught rigging its compiler AND bribing OEMs, so if you actually want there to be competition supporting the little guy that has been playing by the rules might be a good thing.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Great but I think that it will heat like Hell!! by Auroch · 2011-03-18 04:06 · Score: 1

And I have an Atom N270-based netbook that, probably 90% of the time, is on passive cooling. It *has* a fan, but that fan is almost never on when all I'm doing is surfing the web, writing a document, or working in a spreadsheet.
Yes, they're going to increase power consumption a little, but you're forgetting how low the power and heat requirements are for these devices in the first place. If the fan has to run 20% of the time instead of 10%, it may shorten the battery life by 30 minutes total, over the course of the 6 hour life that the battery currently has? And that's a 2-year old netbook (Dell Mini 9)... batteries and CPU's have gotten better in the mean time. That's not even considering the power savings from not having to power a discrete (Intel X3100) graphics card... I could actually see a noticeable *increase* in battery life thanks to this.
Since when is the x3100 a discrete card? I think there may be other factors in your analysis. For example, the latest atom chips have a version of the 3 series intel graphics ...

--
Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
Whatever needs to be by Sycraft-fu · 2011-03-18 04:20 · Score: 1

The whole reason graphics was separated out is it is so damn math intensive. In particular, it calls for a certain kind of parallel math that CPUs aren't, or perhaps more accurately weren't, very good at. Building a real general purpose CPU which could do good 3D was just not possible. Slowly it is becoming more possible. We are still a long way off, but approaching it.
Ultimately everything on one CPU is what we want. However it isn't possible for high end 3D, hence it gets put off to a separate combination vector processor and ASIC. As thing progress, hopefully we can bring it back in.
Will anything new come along? Dunno, we'll just have to see.
Re:While APU's definitely have their place... by Daniel+Phillips · 2011-03-18 04:58 · Score: 1

They also said 2011 would be the year of Linux on the desktop!
This is the year of Linux on my desktop, as was 2010 and every other year back to 1998. If it is not the year of Linux on the desktop for you then I am sorry for you, I really am.

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Re:While APU's definitely have their place... by Daniel+Phillips · 2011-03-18 05:00 · Score: 1

Well, on the bright side, 2011 is going to be the year of Duke Nukem Forever, so there's hope for Linux on the Desktop! ;-)
Indeed, though many people may know it first as "Android on the Desktop".

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Dedicated Sound Card by darkwing_bmf · 2011-03-18 05:38 · Score: 1

At one point most gamers had dedicated sound cards. Eventually the technology caught up and almost every gamer now uses integrated sound.
Graphics will eventually get that way. It won't be this year but that is the trend.
1. Re:Dedicated Sound Card by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-03-18 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  You still have suckers buying high end sound cards, though, oddly enough, and I'm not sure you're right about almost every gamer. I bet a sizable chunk of them still think they need to buy add-in sound cards.
2. Re:Dedicated Sound Card by darkwing_bmf · 2011-03-18 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'm excluding audiophiles. They'll pay extra because they think digital bits going over gold sound better than digital bits going over copper.
3. Re:Dedicated Sound Card by bo1024 · 2011-03-18 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  It's pretty easy to hit the limit of what our ear can distinguish in quality, even when we're trying.
  How close are we to the limit of what our eyes can distinguish in resolution, quality, and fps? It'll be awhile.
4. Re:Dedicated Sound Card by aaron552 · 2011-03-18 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  The outputs on my (admittedly fairly old) discrete soundcard are analogue. My motherboard has both optical and electrical SPDIF outputs. (Unfortunately, I don't have a receiver for digital audio.) The sound from the discrete card has noticeably less interference than the analogue outputs on the motherboard.
  
  --
  I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
Re:And the advantage is...? by X0563511 · 2011-03-18 07:08 · Score: 1

It's just those integrated graphics are in the CPU rather than the northbridge.
You say this like it's such a tiny thing. Being that 'close' to the MMU and RAM, and CPU, has got to help things.
Even if the output still looks like crap, at least it will output said crap more efficiently.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:While APU's definitely have their place... by darkpixel2k · 2011-03-18 12:06 · Score: 1

They also said 2011 would be the year of Linux on the desktop!
They also said that Linux is still for faggots.
While your statement is true, it is a very narrow subset of who Linux is for. Linux is also for midgets, Asians, Christians, elves, drug traffickers, airline pilots, geeks, dentists, evil geniuses, Pixair, etc... I think you are trying to be inflammatory...

--
There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
Not buying the analogy by bo1024 · 2011-03-18 16:17 · Score: 1

Sorry, but this doesn't work for me. Floating point operations are perfect for integrating with the CPU because they are instruction-level commands whose results may be used on an instruction-by-instruction basis. Furthermore, there's a pretty hard limit on how many/much of an FPU someone needs: one per core, most likely? (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
With GPUs, there's no limit to how powerful, fast, memory-caching, and power-hungry they need to be. The ceiling keeps rising. It doesn't scale exactly with processing demands, as FPU requirements do/did.
If a resource scales differently for different users, it'll probably never be fully integrated with the CPU. Graphics processors are being added now, because there's a low enough ceiling for what many users want and need. But separate GPUs will probably never disappear. The task they perform is highly unrelated and separate from that of the CPU.
And it's not like this new technology is actually binding the two together (unless I've missed something), it just puts them side-by-side on the same chip so that Intel and AMD can make more money from the bundle. If anything, this trend leads eventually toward preprinted motherboards complete with all features (RAM etc), not CPUs which perform lots of different functions.
Re:And the advantage is...? by DaVince21 · 2011-03-19 01:53 · Score: 1

So there will be more computers with crappy integrated graphics.
Yes, with a but. Those who just need to work with higher resolutions, very basic hardware acceleration and/or specialized/optimized tasks better suited by a GPU will benefit from this. A lot of laptops will probably have an *actual* graphics card running alongside them, which means several things:
- Regular users (like gamers) will also benefit from the integrated graphics as they can be used to further improve a game's or task's performance.
- Very low-budget or business-oriented laptops will be cheaper because they don't need/have the external GPU.
- A laptop can be set to a VERY low-powered mode where the external GPU is simply turned off, saving battery time so someone can do his work on just the battery longer. They can switch out of the low-powered mode when they actually need a decent graphics card.
So it's not *just* integrated graphics. This time, it's integrated into the CPU and it's able to both replace actual GPUs and perform extra processing tasks.

--
I am not devoid of humor.