Another problem is immediate mode vertex data is tied to the GPU front end vertex / data fetch rate, while vertex buffer data is read through the texture fetch path (much, much higher bandwidth). So the max rate for each type is fundamentally bottlenecked by the architecture, even if you could transfer it in at the same rate.
The fixed function GPU front end is not as massively parallel as the general purpose shader engines / texture fetch portion. To reach the same levels of performance on immediate mode, the architecture would have to change significantly, and it would most likely come with a large area hit, which directly translates into chip yield / cost.
I think the part of the deal where AMD can go fabless and not have to manufacture x% of their x86 processors in their own fabs is worth just as much as the cash. That lets them free themselves of Global Foundries and become an innovative product company without having to worry about the fab boat anchor. Sure, they won't be able to write their own design rules and tweak the last 5% performance or area out of the process, but they also won't be in mortal danger when the fab isn't running at capacity. Intel can afford the fabs at this point, and AMD has restructured itself to not be able to afford them. Hopefully they can make up for it in innovation, time to market, "agility",...
Re:Anyone with more knowledge explain this to me
on
AMD Fusion Details Leaked
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I think the chatty paradigm of GPU usage will be more fine-grained "stream computing." When the latency between CPU and GPU is lower, and you share the same cache, the penalty for setting up and launching stream computing tasks on the GPU becomes lower, enabling more things to be accelerated this way.
The old way, you only really got benefits from stream computing if you were able to set up a massive job for the GPU, set it on its task, wait for completion, and then get the results. Now, maybe new classes of apps become more feasible.
So its number of users is growing, its number of articles is growing, and it has "peaked?" You can't sustain exponential growth forever, you know. This is just the tail end of the S-curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-curve) where Wikipedia will eventually level out at a certain number of active users and a certain edit rate. This is a normal curve for technology adoption. This is not a bad thing. This does not indicate that Wikipedia has peaked or is less popular, it's more a sign that Wikipedia is reaching the point of maturity.
So the only thing that has peaked is its growth rate.
The seizure is basically a large portion of the synapses in the brain firing all at once at a specific time interval. This causes the body to convulse and most thought to stop. In people prone to seizures, if a certain portion of synapses begin to fire at this critical rate, it can induce a seizure. Flashing lights of just the right frequency can cause synapses in the visual cortex to fire at this rate, inducing the seizure.
"Avalon" offers several layers of access to graphics and rendering services. At the top layer, Microsoft(R) Windows(R) Vector Graphics (WVG) provides a number of advantages common to XML-based graphics markup. WVG is straightforward to use with the rest of the "Avalon" object model, it is readily reusable, and it is familiar to users of Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG).
Slashdot Mirror
Another problem is immediate mode vertex data is tied to the GPU front end vertex / data fetch rate, while vertex buffer data is read through the texture fetch path (much, much higher bandwidth). So the max rate for each type is fundamentally bottlenecked by the architecture, even if you could transfer it in at the same rate. The fixed function GPU front end is not as massively parallel as the general purpose shader engines / texture fetch portion. To reach the same levels of performance on immediate mode, the architecture would have to change significantly, and it would most likely come with a large area hit, which directly translates into chip yield / cost.
I think the part of the deal where AMD can go fabless and not have to manufacture x% of their x86 processors in their own fabs is worth just as much as the cash. That lets them free themselves of Global Foundries and become an innovative product company without having to worry about the fab boat anchor. Sure, they won't be able to write their own design rules and tweak the last 5% performance or area out of the process, but they also won't be in mortal danger when the fab isn't running at capacity. Intel can afford the fabs at this point, and AMD has restructured itself to not be able to afford them. Hopefully they can make up for it in innovation, time to market, "agility", ...
I think the chatty paradigm of GPU usage will be more fine-grained "stream computing." When the latency between CPU and GPU is lower, and you share the same cache, the penalty for setting up and launching stream computing tasks on the GPU becomes lower, enabling more things to be accelerated this way.
The old way, you only really got benefits from stream computing if you were able to set up a massive job for the GPU, set it on its task, wait for completion, and then get the results. Now, maybe new classes of apps become more feasible.
So its number of users is growing, its number of articles is growing, and it has "peaked?" You can't sustain exponential growth forever, you know. This is just the tail end of the S-curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-curve) where Wikipedia will eventually level out at a certain number of active users and a certain edit rate. This is a normal curve for technology adoption. This is not a bad thing. This does not indicate that Wikipedia has peaked or is less popular, it's more a sign that Wikipedia is reaching the point of maturity. So the only thing that has peaked is its growth rate.
4W / cm^3, not 4W / cm^2. So you could make a 108MW generating plant in a cube that is 3m (~10ft) on a side.
Check out Tomboy [1] if you use GNOME, or don't mind pulling in a million dependencies for a simple note-taking app.
[1] http://www.beatniksoftware.com/tomboy/
1 MHz = 1 microsecond cycle time.
20 ms / 1 us = 20,000.
Around 1980, the computer would have to wait 20,000 cycles for a seek.
3 GHz = 333 picosecond cycle time.
5 ms / 333 ps = 15,000,000.
Today, the computer would have to wait 15,000,000 cycles for a seek.
Your point still stands, but your numbers were off by a factor of 1000.
The seizure is basically a large portion of the synapses in the brain firing all at once at a specific time interval. This causes the body to convulse and most thought to stop. In people prone to seizures, if a certain portion of synapses begin to fire at this critical rate, it can induce a seizure. Flashing lights of just the right frequency can cause synapses in the visual cortex to fire at this rate, inducing the seizure.
A: East cross North.