From ATI to AMD back to ATI? A Journey in Futility @ [H]

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,468
Really, I could see the possibility of an AMD license to cover Intels ass in the GPU wars. To me there was an almost even chance that Intel would either A) Licence Patents from NVidia again, B) Licence Patents from AMD, C) Figure they have differentiated their design and key patents have expired, so they can ignore A) and B).

But Radeon IGPs inside Intel future CPU packages?

AMD would be pretty much giving up the only advantage their soon to be released, and finally competitive APUs with Zen/Vega internals.

That part of the rumor never made any sense, it would be like racing a marathon behind one of your competitors and catching him right near the finish line, only to give him a nice shove across it, to make sure he finishes first.

I also don't think Intel is concerned enough about the IGP to want to adopt AMDs design.

Intels CPUs with AMD IGP is something that has always seemed absurd.
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,789

fingerbob69

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
110
Yes in games consumer RX will be faster than the Vega FE. Not hard to understand is it? Different drivers for the two cards Vega FE will use pro drivers when consumer Vega will use drivers optimized for games lol

How hard it is to understand what Raja stated, its pretty black and white.



Two separate drivers one for pro and one for games oriented, This is like Fire GL and Quardro cards simple.

God he stated it twice.



Right after this quote about the RX drivers he talked about the compute performance for the Vega FE


I was responding to your assertion that

"Frontier edition, will be the fastest compute output of all the Vega's. That puts gaming vega's at less clocks or are cut down versions (I think its the prior as they have shown those types of cards to public already)"

So wind your patronising neck back in and go shove the attitude where the sun don't shine....


....please.
 

razor1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
10,155
I was responding to your assertion that

"Frontier edition, will be the fastest compute output of all the Vega's. That puts gaming vega's at less clocks or are cut down versions (I think its the prior as they have shown those types of cards to public already)"

So wind your patronising neck back in and go shove the attitude where the sun don't shine....


....please.
if compute performance is the fastest for single GPU cards, the Vega FE which is >25 fp 16 flops and >12.5 fp 32 flops, all other cards have be less that what ever that >25 fp 16 flops and >12.5 fp 32 flops.

We are not talking about application performance directly, he was talking about flops and mentioned flops.

RK: On the compute side of things..Vega FE will be the fastest single GPU solution (>12.5 TFlops FP32) when it’s available and our NCU packs several additional optimizations, including Rapid-Packed-Math which delivers >25 TFLops of FP16
So how do you get other cards less than the >25 fp 16 flops and >12.5 fp 32 flops figures? LESS clocks or CUT cores. Right? Only two explanations.
 

fingerbob69

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
110
You were talking clocks. "less clocks".

The Frontier Edition clocks at 1600.

You stated RX Vega will be "at less clocks" compared to the Frontier.

Raja stated RX Vega will be faster than Frontier.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
49,897
I am getting an informed answer together now. Funny the fool did big stories on rumors then days don't trade on those. Lol
 

razor1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
10,155
You were talking clocks. "less clocks".

The Frontier Edition clocks at 1600.

You stated RX Vega will be "at less clocks" compared to the Frontier.

Raja stated RX Vega will be faster than Frontier.

Raja never stated clocks will be faster on the consumer Vega vs Frontier dude.

He stated gaming performance will be faster due to drivers not clocks

RK: Consumer RX will be much better optimized for all the top gaming titles and flavors of RX Vega will actually be faster than Frontier version!
What are they optimizing? The card? NO its the driver.
 

fingerbob69

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
110
So in comparing Pro cards to Consumer versions the only optimisation Raja's talking about are driver optimisations? That's your interpritation, no fact.

But let's suppose you're right. The only change from Pro to Consumer is the driver ...then RX Vega clocked at 1600 isn't going to be any slouch!
 

razor1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
10,155
So in comparing Pro cards to Consumer versions the only optimisation Raja's talking about are driver optimisations? That's your interpritation, no fact.

But let's suppose you're right. The only change from Pro to Consumer is the driver ...then RX Vega clocked at 1600 isn't going to be any slouch!

They are the same chip, that's how AMD and nV been making them for years lol, its just driver differences.
 

Bahanime

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
392
I was responding to your assertion that

"Frontier edition, will be the fastest compute output of all the Vega's. That puts gaming vega's at less clocks or are cut down versions (I think its the prior as they have shown those types of cards to public already)"

So wind your patronising neck back in and go shove the attitude where the sun don't shine....


....please.
Pro Drivers. RX Vega can't even run some pro apps, and certainly will fail in machine learning apps without driver support. So it's a rather iffy statement.
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
45
Either way AMD's stock took another hit. Got nothing to prop up the stock until end of June. Yeah they will reveal Vega at Computex but release won't be til end of June next to Epyc.
 

SighTurtle

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
1,412
Licensing rumor just denied by Lisa Su: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/am...ense-deal-2017-05-22?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo
So now we have Intel and AMD denying this deal, but "you have it on good authority it's a done deal"?
All that statement says is that AMD understands what advantages they have, and aren't stupid enough to give them away.

In my opinion, this does not preclude a third-party asking for a specific product combining both Intel and AMD tech.

Edit: for that 3rd party's exclusive use.
 

razor1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
10,155
All that statement says is that AMD understands what advantages they have, and aren't stupid enough to give them away.

In my opinion, this does not preclude a third-party asking for a specific product combining both Intel and AMD tech.

Edit: for that 3rd party's exclusive use.

Was about to say the same thing.
 

whateverer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
1,143
Told you this was complete horse shit. The Intel->Nvidia license seems to be ongoing, even if the payments have stopped. And an on-package AMD GPU attached to an Intel CPU is yet-another blue-sky pipe-dream.

You'd probably have an easier time making a GPU on an m.2 card, if you really wanted small. And THAT would be replaceable, AND requires no cross-licensing.

This pipe-dream of a GPU-on-package runs-into the same thermal limits as any other high-end APU does. So no serious system could use both simultaneously in a small case. And larger systems would just be better-served with a PCIe graphics card.

FINALLY, WHY THE FUCK WOULD AMD HELP INTEL?
A full-on purchase of the GPU business I could see, but anything less was just pure idiocy produced by dreamers who haven't the slightest clue on how to run a business.

To Quote Lisa:

"We're not looking at enabling a competitor to compete against our products"

That should have been obvious to all these big dreamers. It's pretty clear to me why she's running things, and the rest of you are not.
 
Last edited:

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,468
All that statement says is that AMD understands what advantages they have, and aren't stupid enough to give them away.

In my opinion, this does not preclude a third-party asking for a specific product combining both Intel and AMD tech.

Edit: for that 3rd party's exclusive use.
IMO people are starting to using Conspiracy theory type logic to defend this. There is nothing left to stand on.

It's been denied by Intel and AMD.

The NVidia licence that Intel bought was perpetual for all patents issued up until early 2017, so Intel does NOT need a new GPU license.

The notion of putting AMD GPUs inside an Intel CPU package, is pretty much toxic to both Intel and AMD:

  • For Intel it would be admission they can't design a decent IGP after coming so far.
  • For AMD it would give up their only potential Raven Ridge advantage. Raven Ridge is arguably their most important product. To Undercut it by letting Intel AMD IGP would be criminally inept.

There is just nothing left to defend this rumor...
 

SighTurtle

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
1,412
Told you this was complete horse shit. The Intel->Nvidia license seems to be ongoing, even if the payments have stopped. And an on-package AMD GPU attached to an Intel CPU is yet-another blue-sky pipe-dream.

You'd probably have an easier time making a GPU on an m.2 card, if you really wanted small. And THAT would be replaceable, AND requires no cross-licensing.

This pipe-dream of a GPU-on-package runs-into the same thermal limits as any other high-end APU does. So no serious system could use both simultaneously in a small case. And larger systems would just be better-served with a PCIe graphics card.

FINALLY, WHY THE FUCK WOULD AMD HELP INTEL?
A full-on purchase of the GPU business I could see, but anything less was just pure idiocy produced by dreamers who haven't the slightest clue on how to run a business.

To Quote Lisa:

"We're not looking at enabling a competitor to compete against our products"

That should have been obvious to all these big dreamers. It's pretty clear to me why she's running things, and the rest of you are not.
IMO people are starting to using Conspiracy theory type logic to defend this. There is nothing left to stand on.

It's been denied by Intel and AMD.

The NVidia licence that Intel bought was perpetual for all patents issued up until early 2017, so Intel does NOT need a new GPU license.

The notion of putting AMD GPUs inside an Intel CPU package, is pretty much toxic to both Intel and AMD:

  • For Intel it would be admission they can't design a decent IGP after coming so far.
  • For AMD it would give up their only potential Raven Ridge advantage. Raven Ridge is arguably their most important product. To Undercut it by letting Intel AMD IGP would be criminally inept.

There is just nothing left to defend this rumor...
I'm not defending the rumor, I'm just looking at the perspective of it being true.
 

Presbytier

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
1,058
I'm not defending the rumor, I'm just looking at the perspective of it being true.
That is technically a defense. Semantics aside they allowed this rumor to linger a real long time before trying to squash it, so it is possible they where negotiating and it fell through. It's also possible the original source was trusted enough to run with the info none of this means the reporting was bad. We don't really know what was going on behind closed doors and speculative reporting always has a chance to fall through no reason to get up in arms over it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

whateverer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
1,143
high-end APUs run into thermal limits? What?
You can only extract so much heat from a single IHS, or did you fail basic thermodynamics?

Think of all the fun people are having keeping their 7700k cool. Now make it more complicated because you have a 120w beefcake RX 570 on the same die.

It's a whole lot easier to cool two separate devices. That's how the Surface Book does it's magic.

An APU of any appreciable performance level (say, 4x more powerful than AMD IGP) will hit thermal limits. Anything less, and were back to the "why the hell would you do that if it's barely faster than existing IGP" question
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,468
Isn't RX 570 way beyond high-end APU possibilities?
It's way beyond what AMD is going to deliver for Raven Ridge, which is expected to have about 700 Stream Processors, and obviously a lot less memory bandwidth, than even budget GPUs.
 

lolfail9001

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
1,509
Think of all the fun people are having keeping their 7700k cool.
Because it's thermal transfer inside the IHS is impeded by a glue?
Now make it more complicated because you have a 120w beefcake RX 570 on the same die.
It will actually become much easier, because now you can just solder that 200 or more mm^2 die to IHS. Yes, TDP will have to be set pretty high (like 95W minimum for a package with decent GPU) , but that's the GPU price, what can you do. Hell, if GPU was sufficiently energy efficient, you could probably fit something like 7700hq + 1050 into that package with plenty room to spare.
 

SighTurtle

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
1,412
Well yeah, but if they were going to deliver on-package graphics for Intel, you betet your ass it should be at least rttwice as fast as raven ridge. Otherwise why bother?
Oh, thats what you meant? I've never really considered the scenario where AMD gives Intel better APUs to be believable.
 

Anarchist4000

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 10, 2001
Messages
1,659
In my opinion, this does not preclude a third-party asking for a specific product combining both Intel and AMD tech.
Nor does it preclude integrating two separate dice on the same package. Which wouldn't involve IP licensing, but acquiring another companies product. No licensing deals exist to put discrete cards in a system as is. That was always the likely scenario.

This pipe-dream of a GPU-on-package runs-into the same thermal limits as any other high-end APU does. So no serious system could use both simultaneously in a small case. And larger systems would just be better-served with a PCIe graphics card.
Yet we already have CPUs and GPUs capable of far more heat dissipation with even smaller coolers? It's a miracle! Just imagine all the smoke given off by a graphics card over 120W as it struggles to run under 50C. Breaks all those laws of physics and combines the CPU and GPU with double the transistor density of even the most compact fabrication process!

Or a large CPU sized cooler could dissipate well over 300W, exceeding even discrete card specifications, if the <85C operating temperature of most GPUs was a target. Even Vega10 and a 1800X would barely need to pass that limit. Maybe a dual Vega10 plus Ryzen APU for even better performance at less wattage?

I'm sure the guys with PhD's from writing papers don't know nearly as much about this as people on a hardware forum.
 

Dayaks

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
7,811
APUs have never made sense from a value perspective... at least for us here at hard forum. A shitty processor and low end GPU is cheaper and multiples better. A few months ago I did a 860k/1050ti build for traveling rather than an APU.

Now, if AMD could get their GPUs into Intel's chip they'd certainly do it. You get basically profit off of the majority of the market with no risk. Businesses make deals like that all the time.
 

spine

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
2,623
I think the most generous interpretation at this point is that there was some deal going on, but that's now fallen by the side.

So of course it's being denied, and now it's simply the clout of Kyle's word remaining. However, that still weights highly for me at least, given I've never seen such an article quite like this from him. Felt odd when he first came out with it, like there would be follow up joke post or something...
 

Ninjaman67

n00b
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
17
APUs have never made sense from a value perspective... at least for us here at hard forum. A shitty processor and low end GPU is cheaper and multiples better. A few months ago I did a 860k/1050ti build for traveling rather than an APU.

Now, if AMD could get their GPUs into Intel's chip they'd certainly do it. You get basically profit off of the majority of the market with no risk. Businesses make deals like that all the time.
APU's in a corporate setting is where the value is. They are meant for PC's in the workplace that have 4000+ PC's that don't use a lot of electricity. That can be a lot of money saved on energy costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

Dayaks

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
7,811
APU's in a corporate setting is where the value is. They are meant for PC's in the workplace that have 4000+ PC's that don't use a lot of electricity. That can be a lot of money saved on energy costs.
For a corporate setting doesn't a more energy efficient intel CPU with IGPU make sense? Not like they need a GPU for games... and professionals generally use Quadros.
 

Ninjaman67

n00b
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
17
For a corporate setting doesn't a more energy efficient intel CPU with IGPU make sense? Not like they need a GPU for games... and professionals generally use Quadros.
sometimes. however some applications don't work well with the intel embedded gpu and quite frankly they fail often.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

whateverer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
1,143
For a corporate setting doesn't a more energy efficient intel CPU with IGPU make sense? Not like they need a GPU for games... and professionals generally use Quadros.
Absolutely for me.

My company cheaped-out and went AMD Trinity dual-core instead of Intel Ivy Bridge dual-core. I regret it every day, since it's slower than my old Core 2 Duo.

More powerful APUs are meaningless for work, except for those using CAD. And for most of those they'll pay for a dedicated card, since the Quadro/FirePro cards unlock many times improved performance.

Sure, I have way more GPU power than the old GMA950, but you wouldn't know it.
 
Last edited:

Ninjaman67

n00b
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
17
Absolutely for me.

My company cheaped-out and went AMD Trinity dual-core instead of Intel Ivy Bridge dual-core. I regret it every day, since it's slower than my old Core 2 Duo.

More powerful APUs are meaningless for work, except for those using CAD. And for most of those they'll pay for a dedicated card, since the Quadro/FirePro cards unlock many times improved performance.

Sure, I have way more GPU power than the old GMA950, but you wouldn't know it.
That's funny because the company I work for went intel only and our hardware team has to be a 24 hour shop to keep things going. I am one of 7 that fixes windows and lan issues for this company's location and we are business hours only. we have a 4 year refresh cycle that should really be a 3 year cycle. But hey, corporations are cheap.
 

trandoanhung1991

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,108
What's the use case for APUs? I'm struggling to think why one needs an APU in a desktop setting when you can shove a GTX 1080 + i7 7700K into a case the size of a PS4. Even for mobile I don't see a niche for it.

An APU, IMO, is an oxymoron. Pair a powerful CPU and a powerful GPU onto the same die for space savings, yet the irony here is that to be able to cool it you absolutely need a lot of space for heatpipes, fans and heatsinks. Smaller is not better in this case, since even with an IHS it's difficult to fit many heatpipes on top of the die.

The only laptop with the beefiest APU (Carrizo/Bristol Ridge) is as heavy as the lightest laptops featuring 6700HQ/7700HQ + 1070. Both hover around 2.2-2.8kg. I chose the top of the line APU model, maxing out at 35-45W.

APU laptops: 15.6 inch, 2.2-2.7kg. i7 x700HQ + 1070 laptops: 2.2-2.7kg. TPD wise x700HQ + 1070 combo is around 4-5 times higher. So where's the APU advantage?
 

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
4,547
What's the use case for APUs? I'm struggling to think why one needs an APU in a desktop setting when you can shove a GTX 1080 + i7 7700K into a case the size of a PS4. Even for mobile I don't see a niche for it.

An APU, IMO, is an oxymoron. Pair a powerful CPU and a powerful GPU onto the same die for space savings, yet the irony here is that to be able to cool it you absolutely need a lot of space for heatpipes, fans and heatsinks. Smaller is not better in this case, since even with an IHS it's difficult to fit many heatpipes on top of the die.

The only laptop with the beefiest APU (Carrizo/Bristol Ridge) is as heavy as the lightest laptops featuring 6700HQ/7700HQ + 1070. Both hover around 2.2-2.8kg. I chose the top of the line APU model, maxing out at 35-45W.

APU laptops: 15.6 inch, 2.2-2.7kg. i7 x700HQ + 1070 laptops: 2.2-2.7kg. TPD wise x700HQ + 1070 combo is around 4-5 times higher. So where's the APU advantage?
Sweet! Send me $1500 so I can build my mother a new email/facebook/web game machine!
 

trandoanhung1991

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,108
Sweet! Send me $1500 so I can build my mother a new email/facebook/web game machine!
What's wrong with Core M for that use case? Why do you need an APU? What's wrong with Core M/Celeron for email/facebook/web game? All those use cases you mentioned favor the stronger CPU cores of Core M/Atom over AMD APUs.

Your mother can get by with a $250 Celeron-powered notebook. Why does she need an APU when she won't use the GPU?
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,468
What's wrong with Core M for that use case? Why do you need an APU? What's wrong with Core M/Celeron for email/facebook/web game? All those use cases you mentioned favor the stronger CPU cores of Core M/Atom over AMD APUs.

Your mother can get by with a $250 Celeron-powered notebook. Why does she need an APU when she won't use the GPU?
Core M/Celeron are essentially APUs as well.

The new Raven Ridge will just be a better one.

Most PCs sold today are laptops, and AMD needs a good APU primarily for the laptop market.

I am always reading the GOG forums, and the people having the most trouble running games are people using Intel laptops and their integrated graphics.

This market would likely do a lot better with a nice AMD APU.
 
Top