NVIDIA is doing fine in the discrete market. AMD not so much.
Your opinion seems very far from facts.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Future games to be more optimized for AMD?
- Thread starter dave343
- Start date
NVIDIA is doing fine in the discrete market. AMD not so much.
Your opinion seems very far from facts.
You're looking at market share, I'm talking about total sales:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/GPU-fourth-quarter-discrete-embedded-graphics-market,21194.html
A decrease of 11.5% over a single year is a very bad outlook for both parties. You can tout market share figures all you want, the bottom line is just how many GPUs they've sold. 2013 isn't going to reverse that trend either. In fact, it's almost certainly going to be an even bigger decline
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/GPU-fourth-quarter-discrete-embedded-graphics-market,21194.html
A decrease of 11.5% over a single year is a very bad outlook for both parties. You can tout market share figures all you want, the bottom line is just how many GPUs they've sold. 2013 isn't going to reverse that trend either. In fact, it's almost certainly going to be an even bigger decline
It isn't clear though if the drop is primarily in low- (or no- or negative-) margin discrete GPUs or on the higher end.
Overall I agree the market is decreasing especially with the advent of the APU / IGP and the decreasing consumer needs, but at the same time, other markets have opened up nicely (mobile). And NVIDIA might get a second wind if some of the laptops and other smaller systems move over to ARM, where NVIDIA will be able to compete with their own "APU" eventually.
Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
Hardly would hurt games for nvidia due to console ports are usually trashy anyways and that's due to phoning it in when it comes to the PC port. Even if it was true that the APU arch would somehow influence the coding to the point that PC discrete cards from AMD would be effected that benefit would go away as the APU arch stays the same and the discrete cards for PC change with every new generation.
dragonstongue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,162
gpgpu performance has always been gimped compared to their workstation equivalents, this generally goes the same for AMD as well.
As for the dies, they have been doing this for quite a long time actually, in this case GK110 is used for Titan and the server cards, GK104 used for consumer cards, it is essentially the same thing, but trimmed down, parts are not used that do not need to be etc, the benefit of doing this, as I have outlined, saves them cost as they know what the performance will be like, what their yields will be like there is tons of reasons.
GK110 was meant to be released initially as a consumer card and through drivers alone, chopping the performance down where it needed to be, but, they decided yields weren`t great enough(for one reason) and decided to use the 104 die instead which had impressive yields/performance(considering)
Honestly, considering the massive $ it costs to do RnD on any chip, I do not see anyone but Intel these days having very specific chips for specific purposes, it makes far more sence to do binning, the main difference between Titan and the consumer cards or even the workstation cards is what? more SMX clusters and more gpgpu performance available, this can easily be done in the binning process, its cheaper(probably) then producing a bunch of chips for specific purposes, a simple laser cut for ill performing parts and such.
As for the dies, they have been doing this for quite a long time actually, in this case GK110 is used for Titan and the server cards, GK104 used for consumer cards, it is essentially the same thing, but trimmed down, parts are not used that do not need to be etc, the benefit of doing this, as I have outlined, saves them cost as they know what the performance will be like, what their yields will be like there is tons of reasons.
GK110 was meant to be released initially as a consumer card and through drivers alone, chopping the performance down where it needed to be, but, they decided yields weren`t great enough(for one reason) and decided to use the 104 die instead which had impressive yields/performance(considering)
Honestly, considering the massive $ it costs to do RnD on any chip, I do not see anyone but Intel these days having very specific chips for specific purposes, it makes far more sence to do binning, the main difference between Titan and the consumer cards or even the workstation cards is what? more SMX clusters and more gpgpu performance available, this can easily be done in the binning process, its cheaper(probably) then producing a bunch of chips for specific purposes, a simple laser cut for ill performing parts and such.
I know you want so badly for NVIDIA to be affected like AMD but they simply are not.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/13/nvidia-posts-q4-2013-earnings/
NVIDIA declared that its Tegra business was continuing to grow. And its GPU division continued to put up impressive numbers, raking in $3.2 billion for the year, despite a sagging PC market.
You know what was problematic remembered because I owned one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel740
It is not a joke, soon after Intel bailed again. If people at Intel had some sort of "vision" they should have pushed Micron to keep developing Rendition Verite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendition_Verite
i stand corrected
Driven quite a bit by enterprise and HPC, with the consumer cards slacking. Tegra 3 did very well, but it was also priced very low and came at the right time. Their Tegra4 SoCs are already late and aren't bringing anything special which you can't get elsewhere.
And I don't "want" anything. I have zero feelings for a corporation that sees me as a bag of money; something that you can't state with the same honesty. nVidia and AMD both are going to have a very rough time in 2013. nVidia because their Tegra 4 SoCs aren't being picked up by OEMs, and AMD because they're relying far too heavily on Win8. I've held back no punches with respect to AMD, who I think might not even survive 2013.
You need to get your fanboy out of your back end, friend
Syphon Filter
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2003
- Messages
- 2,597
IF that happens then Nintendo, Sony and MS are going to have some issues because all their next-gen hardware relies on AMD chips.
However, with contracts like that in the bag, I suspect if AMD were to look as if they were about to go to the wall someone would finance them/buy them out.
It's possible that Sony licensed the design from AMD and if need be they can simply make their own chips.
Everyone knows that AMD is on death's door, I guarantee the contracts were written with this in mind.
dragonstongue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,162
Hate to jinx them, but honestly for everyone who comments that AMD is just going to die you seriously do not know much about what goes on. Liscencing, X86-64, X86 additions, the backing of ATIC etc, AMD simply is not going anywhere soon, no one, even Intel can afford to have them go the way of the dinosaurs, the console wins will surely help them, but I think the thing going to save their bacon(and is starting to show fruit) is their diversity, this goes the same with Nvidia.
AMD wise, consoles, servers(and infrastructure) discrete cards, core cpu business, mobile cpu business, these are all small pieces that are keeping them alive, while no one likes overall the direction they have as a whole taken over the years, I think they have made a lot of really smart moves(and some dumb ones for sure) though I think the biggest thing they did bad in is sitting on laurels to long(Athlon) and letting marketing do the talking(bulldozer-win8)
Nvidia wise, they expanded from initial just GPU and motherboard to doing everything but motherboards(more or less) they diversified early on, and it shows. I hate them as a company, cause overall are definitely anything but "honest" in the way they conduct business practices both from a consumer as well as industry standpoint, but it is hard to argue with success.
Overall, I think AMD has the best shot of being around in a couple years cause simply put, they have all the right parts of the pie, motherboards(core) cpu, gpu, apu, server side etc, they really need to work on the cpu side, however I doubt very highly this will matter in a few years time anymore as the core count is already ballooning, it will be more about the raw performance that can be done within that core and they already have a good start on this, and their gpu overall have always been great.
Intel has it all, the exception is powerfull graphics, something Nvidia and AMD both have.
Nvidia lacks a powerfull cpu side, and yes, in certain things this will matter for years to come. They all 3 have their corners of the market in different ways, and if they are smart in business as they need to be will be and already are diversifying their RnD and products that even if gpu sales fall down, other markets are picking up.
Sony liscenced to be able to make the chips, however, if all falls down, they will have to make new deals and plainly put, a lot of the tech based stuff is non transferable which is part of the reason why folks constantly get sued
AMD wise, consoles, servers(and infrastructure) discrete cards, core cpu business, mobile cpu business, these are all small pieces that are keeping them alive, while no one likes overall the direction they have as a whole taken over the years, I think they have made a lot of really smart moves(and some dumb ones for sure) though I think the biggest thing they did bad in is sitting on laurels to long(Athlon) and letting marketing do the talking(bulldozer-win8)
Nvidia wise, they expanded from initial just GPU and motherboard to doing everything but motherboards(more or less) they diversified early on, and it shows. I hate them as a company, cause overall are definitely anything but "honest" in the way they conduct business practices both from a consumer as well as industry standpoint, but it is hard to argue with success.
Overall, I think AMD has the best shot of being around in a couple years cause simply put, they have all the right parts of the pie, motherboards(core) cpu, gpu, apu, server side etc, they really need to work on the cpu side, however I doubt very highly this will matter in a few years time anymore as the core count is already ballooning, it will be more about the raw performance that can be done within that core and they already have a good start on this, and their gpu overall have always been great.
Intel has it all, the exception is powerfull graphics, something Nvidia and AMD both have.
Nvidia lacks a powerfull cpu side, and yes, in certain things this will matter for years to come. They all 3 have their corners of the market in different ways, and if they are smart in business as they need to be will be and already are diversifying their RnD and products that even if gpu sales fall down, other markets are picking up.
Sony liscenced to be able to make the chips, however, if all falls down, they will have to make new deals and plainly put, a lot of the tech based stuff is non transferable which is part of the reason why folks constantly get sued
JohnDoe954
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Messages
- 4
Good news for the console and AMD owners.
Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
Does it matter when AMD cash reserves are crap. High crash reserves help companies run in the red for a very long time.Hate to jinx them, but honestly for everyone who comments that AMD is just going to die you seriously do not know much about what goes on. Liscencing, X86-64, X86 additions, the backing of ATIC etc, AMD simply is not going anywhere soon, no one, even Intel can afford to have them go the way of the dinosaurs, the console wins will surely help them, but I think the thing going to save their bacon(and is starting to show fruit) is their diversity, this goes the same with Nvidia.
AMD wise, consoles, servers(and infrastructure) discrete cards, core cpu business, mobile cpu business, these are all small pieces that are keeping them alive, while no one likes overall the direction they have as a whole taken over the years, I think they have made a lot of really smart moves(and some dumb ones for sure) though I think the biggest thing they did bad in is sitting on laurels to long(Athlon) and letting marketing do the talking(bulldozer-win8)
Nvidia wise, they expanded from initial just GPU and motherboard to doing everything but motherboards(more or less) they diversified early on, and it shows. I hate them as a company, cause overall are definitely anything but "honest" in the way they conduct business practices both from a consumer as well as industry standpoint, but it is hard to argue with success.
Overall, I think AMD has the best shot of being around in a couple years cause simply put, they have all the right parts of the pie, motherboards(core) cpu, gpu, apu, server side etc, they really need to work on the cpu side, however I doubt very highly this will matter in a few years time anymore as the core count is already ballooning, it will be more about the raw performance that can be done within that core and they already have a good start on this, and their gpu overall have always been great.
Intel has it all, the exception is powerfull graphics, something Nvidia and AMD both have.
Nvidia lacks a powerfull cpu side, and yes, in certain things this will matter for years to come. They all 3 have their corners of the market in different ways, and if they are smart in business as they need to be will be and already are diversifying their RnD and products that even if gpu sales fall down, other markets are picking up.
Sony liscenced to be able to make the chips, however, if all falls down, they will have to make new deals and plainly put, a lot of the tech based stuff is non transferable which is part of the reason why folks constantly get sued
dragonstongue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,162
their cash reserves are low but getting better, the influx of the consoles deal surely will help, they have been getting a lot more attention recently in many ways, but either way, they are backed by GF/ATIC who have lots of $ in reserve to back them up if they need the help, I think this is part of the reason why AMD for the last few years has been making by far more intelligent/strategic moves as they need to show good faith in order that they can be supported.
IBM wants them alive, GF/ATIC need them alive(x86 is one reason as this is a non transferable thing) Intel also need them alive as they are the only other x86 maker that can compete, and international trade laws in many fashions would make it hell on Intel not to have a direct competitior or at least second source maker.
IBM wants them alive, GF/ATIC need them alive(x86 is one reason as this is a non transferable thing) Intel also need them alive as they are the only other x86 maker that can compete, and international trade laws in many fashions would make it hell on Intel not to have a direct competitior or at least second source maker.
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,122
Driven quite a bit by enterprise and HPC, with the consumer cards slacking. Tegra 3 did very well, but it was also priced very low and came at the right time. Their Tegra4 SoCs are already late and aren't bringing anything special which you can't get elsewhere.
And I don't "want" anything. I have zero feelings for a corporation that sees me as a bag of money; something that you can't state with the same honesty. nVidia and AMD both are going to have a very rough time in 2013. nVidia because their Tegra 4 SoCs aren't being picked up by OEMs, and AMD because they're relying far too heavily on Win8. I've held back no punches with respect to AMD, who I think might not even survive 2013.
You need to get your fanboy out of your back end, friend
are you on drugs? seriously....
That's_Corporate
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,738
The shift of focus that we once hated AMD for, is soon going to be the strategy we call "genius". Anyone familiar with video cards knows what strategy I'm referring to - the moment they shifted focus from making the fastest discrete PC components, to speeding up how each component interacts with one another. That was around the time of the 6xxx series in my opinion.
Something just clicked when the PS4 reveal touted blazing fast memory due to the shared nature of it. Not only that, but the whole APU thing too. They emphasized an enhanced PC architecture, and that's exactly what AMD has been focusing on while most people flung feces at them for letting nVidia build the fastest discrete graphics cards.
I think AMD bet on the largest performance gains coming from changes in the architecture of the entire PC, not just the architecture of the GPU, CPU, and memory individually. Being someone who looks at things holistically by nature, I'm biased but I do rationally believe that it's the right move.
The reality of what will happen could be COMPLETELY different - AMD's strategy could fall flat on its face if their strategy doesn't yield solid performance. However, for a second, imagine that it works (and works really well). A few things would result:
1) Games on consoles would be so easy to port to a similar AMD equipped PC, that developers would have mountains more time to optimize and enhance
2) Without the need for $1,000 GPU's and CPU's to get truly great gaming performance, PC gaming will become much more affordable - could mean more attention for us die-hards from the publishers which would only be a good thing
3) The financial health of AMD would be almost goofy - they could sell forward billions of dollars of shipments of chips to the console makers on their balance sheet AND see their new, integrated, AMD architecture be the obvious choice for just about every PC gamer
Could the opposite happen and AMD go under in a ball of flames? Absolutely! But no one can deny that it's exciting to see one company take an entirely different approach. I applaud AMD for that, if anything.
Something just clicked when the PS4 reveal touted blazing fast memory due to the shared nature of it. Not only that, but the whole APU thing too. They emphasized an enhanced PC architecture, and that's exactly what AMD has been focusing on while most people flung feces at them for letting nVidia build the fastest discrete graphics cards.
I think AMD bet on the largest performance gains coming from changes in the architecture of the entire PC, not just the architecture of the GPU, CPU, and memory individually. Being someone who looks at things holistically by nature, I'm biased but I do rationally believe that it's the right move.
The reality of what will happen could be COMPLETELY different - AMD's strategy could fall flat on its face if their strategy doesn't yield solid performance. However, for a second, imagine that it works (and works really well). A few things would result:
1) Games on consoles would be so easy to port to a similar AMD equipped PC, that developers would have mountains more time to optimize and enhance
2) Without the need for $1,000 GPU's and CPU's to get truly great gaming performance, PC gaming will become much more affordable - could mean more attention for us die-hards from the publishers which would only be a good thing
3) The financial health of AMD would be almost goofy - they could sell forward billions of dollars of shipments of chips to the console makers on their balance sheet AND see their new, integrated, AMD architecture be the obvious choice for just about every PC gamer
Could the opposite happen and AMD go under in a ball of flames? Absolutely! But no one can deny that it's exciting to see one company take an entirely different approach. I applaud AMD for that, if anything.
Syphon Filter
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2003
- Messages
- 2,597
TC,
That makes a lot of sense when it's all put down like that. Do you think it's possible that AMD will bring DDR5 to the desktop market skipping DDR4 entirely (as per the architecture of the PS4)?
I guess what you will say will be put to the test in due course.
Also, I've been out of the loop for a while. Could someone fill me in (a little) on the AMD APU stuff please?
Is there a desktop APU that I can buy today from AMD or is it OEM stuff only (i.e. via Dell/HP in a desktop or laptop)?
That makes a lot of sense when it's all put down like that. Do you think it's possible that AMD will bring DDR5 to the desktop market skipping DDR4 entirely (as per the architecture of the PS4)?
I guess what you will say will be put to the test in due course.
Also, I've been out of the loop for a while. Could someone fill me in (a little) on the AMD APU stuff please?
Is there a desktop APU that I can buy today from AMD or is it OEM stuff only (i.e. via Dell/HP in a desktop or laptop)?
A10-5800K is the leading desktop APU at the moment. It is much weaker than the PS4 APU, somewhere between GeForce 9600 GT and 9800 GTX in performance according to PassMark. It still is much better than any Intel integrated graphics.
BTW, I think there are some differences between GDDR5 and DDR5.
BTW, I think there are some differences between GDDR5 and DDR5.
Long story short the apu is a fusion of amd's x86 cpu with a amd (ati) Gpu on the same die.
on to memory amd is not skipping ddr4... take a look http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showpost.php?p=179039&postcount=67
SURPRISE gddr5 and ddr4 dimms use the same slot. so amd's use of gddr5 is a placeholder till ddr4 is ready for main stream consumption. then all you need to do when ddr4 is ready is gddr5 dimms out replace with ddr4 and profit
interesting article...looks like Nvidia is betting on mobile devices over next-gen consoles...
http://www.gamespot.com/features/nv...ot;AmdVsNvidia;NvidiaAndAmdPlaceBets;ReadMore
http://www.gamespot.com/features/nv...ot;AmdVsNvidia;NvidiaAndAmdPlaceBets;ReadMore
CRY CRY CRY WE LET AMD TAKE THE WII U, PS4 AND 720... cause we have a better solution that no one will buy.
Why have we not seen an uptick in design wins for nvidia's tegra chips. the main reason they over promise on performance and under deliver and when you under-deliver on your performance/heat/battery claims in the mobile space its literally slitting your own throat . Here is a good question for you How many non-Nvidia Tegra 4 reference designs were used in Nvidia’s keynote?
ill wait for you figure that out hell how many tegra 4 based devices are announced and coming out...
That's_Corporate
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,738
With regards to specific types of memory which will be emphasized, I have no idea. Just using common sense though, if the nature of the "supercharged PC architecture" requires that GDDR5 be used, then it's only logical that it will get introduced into the PC RAM sphere in order to make the crosstalk between next-gen consoles and AMD's PC architectural possible. That said, perhaps the AMD PC architecture doesn't care what RAM is used - no one really knows until the chips begin to fall.
With regards to the desktop AMD APU, there's plenty of options out there! I believe they're sold under the name "trinity". It's not a very enticing proposition at the moment since the concept is still in its infancy, but it certainly has potential if they can make it work at the higher performance echelons (where most people on [H] like to spend their time
).It's a wait-and-see game at the moment, but if AMD can get the discrete components of a PC to talk to each other in a much more efficient way, then we may be in for one hell of a paradigm shift! And if anyone can pull it off, it'll be a company that makes both CPU's and GPU's. That's where the true value of AMD is, in my opinion.
Skulltrail
n00b
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 29
I hope so. I just recently purchased a 7970.
Syphon Filter
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2003
- Messages
- 2,597
Thanks for the info chaps!
As I said, a lot of what TC says makes sense, not only from a tech point of view but the business case is also strong.
Tying down the next-gen console supply contracts wasn't an accident/left to chance no matter what nvidia would have us believe!!
As I said, a lot of what TC says makes sense, not only from a tech point of view but the business case is also strong.
Tying down the next-gen console supply contracts wasn't an accident/left to chance no matter what nvidia would have us believe!!
Syphon Filter
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2003
- Messages
- 2,597
Even BEFORE reading TCs thoughts I was thinking that AMD had basically secured their future off the back of their supply agreements for the next-gen consoles.
When combined with the commentary above about a more "unified" architecture etc it all starts to fall into place.
It might just be hot-air (no offence TC) but there's a certain logic to it all. Only time will tell though.
When combined with the commentary above about a more "unified" architecture etc it all starts to fall into place.
It might just be hot-air (no offence TC) but there's a certain logic to it all. Only time will tell though.
ShuttleLuv
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2003
- Messages
- 7,295
Hopefully their console drivers work better than some of the desktop ones.
KazeoHin
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 9,000
Hopefully their console drivers work better than some of the desktop ones.
That's the thing: consoles don't need drivers. The compiled code shoots directly to the chip through the basic OS.
That's_Corporate
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,738
ShuttleLuv
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2003
- Messages
- 7,295
Eh you make it sound like star wars. Prolly still some low level drivers needed.
- "Sort of" to the first one, although its just a matter of timing. We're not going to see DDR4 until the late stages of 2014 or 2015, so there's inevitably going to be a memory bottleneck that has to be alleviated in order to provide substantial performance increases. DDR3 prices have also gone up this year, and it looks like that trend is going to continue. An alternative, eDRAM, provides the performance increase but it's also much costlier. When you add these things up, soldering GDDR5 onto the boards makes quite a bit of sense.
- AMD's APUs are like your 1155 Intel parts, except the CPU and the GPU are going to talk to each other by accessing the same workloads (if possible) and the same memory (anything after Trinity can do this). AMD aren't the only company that's spearheading the GPGPU race, but they are currently at the tip of that spear when it comes to integrating the CPU and GPU. nVidia, Qualcomm, most of ARM, and even Intel are all going in the same direction -- albeit with varying degrees of success and to different extents. The point here is to use the huge chunk of die space that now belongs to the GPU to help with compute, and not just graphics. AMD's Trinity VLIW4 graphics take up roughly 40%-50% of the entire die, and Intel is following suit by increasing the EUs on Haswell's dies.
- You can buy AMD APUs from every popular online retailer. Just look for the FM2/FM1 sockets
The point here is to use the huge chunk of die space that now belongs to the GPU to help with compute, and not just graphics. AMD's Trinity VLIW4 graphics take up roughly 40%-50% of the entire die, and Intel is following suit by increasing the EUs on Haswell's dies. Because there severely diminishing returns on the CPU side (if you've bought a chip in the last 5 years you've got enough performance), AMD/Intel have been forced to look elsewhere to spend the die space that's available as nodes shrink (and offer up valuable dark silicon, but this is a more complicated digression).
AMD and Intel aren't going to offer any substantial increases in CPU performance for the foreseeable future, but on-die GPUs are going to eat away at discrete graphics card share at an accelerating pace.
- "Sort of" to the first one, although its just a matter of timing. We're not going to see DDR4 until the late stages of 2014 or 2015, so there's inevitably going to be a memory bottleneck that has to be alleviated in order to provide substantial performance increases. DDR3 prices have also gone up this year, and it looks like that trend is going to continue. An alternative, eDRAM, provides the performance increase but it's also much costlier. When you add these things up, soldering GDDR5 onto the boards makes quite a bit of sense.
- AMD's APUs are like your 1155 Intel parts, except the CPU and the GPU are going to talk to each other by accessing the same workloads (if possible) and the same memory (anything after Trinity can do this). AMD aren't the only company that's spearheading the GPGPU race, but they are currently at the tip of that spear when it comes to integrating the CPU and GPU. nVidia, Qualcomm, most of ARM, and even Intel are all going in the same direction -- albeit with varying degrees of success and to different extents.
- You can buy AMD APUs from every popular online retailer. Just look for the FM2/FM1 sockets
The point here is to use the huge chunk of die space that now belongs to the GPU to help with compute, and not just graphics. AMD's Trinity VLIW4 graphics take up roughly 40%-50% of the entire die, and Intel is following suit by increasing the EUs on Haswell's dies. Because there have been severely diminishing returns on the CPU side (if you've bought a chip in the last 5 years you've got enough performance), AMD/Intel have been forced to look elsewhere to spend the die space that's available as nodes shrink (and offer up valuable dark silicon, but this is a more complicated digression).
AMD and Intel aren't going to offer any substantial increases in CPU performance for the foreseeable future, but on-die GPUs are going to eat away at discrete graphics card share at an accelerating pace.
dragonstongue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,162
AMD APU and Intel 1155 are not quite the same thing.
APU are focused on both sides of the coin being graphics/compute and general processing, they are "custom" if you will.
Intel socket LGA1155(soon LGA1150) can house chips that offer graphics or no graphics it really depends on the cpu being used.
I guess its just that, Intel offers graphics but for the moment are able to do it, not focused on it, AMD APU offerings(A series mostly) are quite focused on both sides with reasonable cpu performance and very good gpu performance(for being on-die)
DDR and GDDR are not quite the same thing, usually DDR is inferincing the sticks of memory users install themselves usually from 1 to 4 sticks, GDDR is graphics DDR memory, not able to be changed as it is soldered onto the motherboard or graphics card in question, GDDR5 is quite $ from a manufacturing side, but does have the performance benefits as well as capacity compared to say XDR ram used in PS3 which is VERY fast, but also limited capacity(from cost side)
I honestly doubt AMD will skip from DDR3 directly to DDR5 which to my knowledge is not even speced out yet, to use GDDR5 with no system ram is possible, but I do not see this being done anytime soon for general consume use, unless, the die becomes larger and gets some embedded memory in some fashion so the cpu/gpu gets some wicked fast memory AND a large amount of general purpose memory, again, I do not see this happening, consoles or maybe some tablets probably as it would be easier in one aspect to get the most out of the design, everything else really does not make sence at this point.
DDR-DDR2-DDR3-DDR4 and so on, for graphics it also went in that order(though few used GDDR4 overall) there was and is many reasons they went with GDDR5 and most products are using it and GDDR3 at the moment, cost-capacity-performance-less complexity. X gb of GDDR5 as a "pool" of memory really only makes sence for "closed" designs as I have already worded and pelo pointed out.
Consoles do have drivers, but there is very few "software" based for them, most of it is "baked" into the base bios and such, low level access, most of it is hard coded to my understanding e.g you access the hardware directly to make it do what you want and it is limited to certain things by design(close to metal) not nearly the same thing as the desktop environment which is hardcoded(close to metal) but also very much software driven(drivers) this is why we generally do not see major patches for consoles making the games look WAY better compared to desktop which happens all the time
APU are focused on both sides of the coin being graphics/compute and general processing, they are "custom" if you will.
Intel socket LGA1155(soon LGA1150) can house chips that offer graphics or no graphics it really depends on the cpu being used.
I guess its just that, Intel offers graphics but for the moment are able to do it, not focused on it, AMD APU offerings(A series mostly) are quite focused on both sides with reasonable cpu performance and very good gpu performance(for being on-die)
DDR and GDDR are not quite the same thing, usually DDR is inferincing the sticks of memory users install themselves usually from 1 to 4 sticks, GDDR is graphics DDR memory, not able to be changed as it is soldered onto the motherboard or graphics card in question, GDDR5 is quite $ from a manufacturing side, but does have the performance benefits as well as capacity compared to say XDR ram used in PS3 which is VERY fast, but also limited capacity(from cost side)
I honestly doubt AMD will skip from DDR3 directly to DDR5 which to my knowledge is not even speced out yet, to use GDDR5 with no system ram is possible, but I do not see this being done anytime soon for general consume use, unless, the die becomes larger and gets some embedded memory in some fashion so the cpu/gpu gets some wicked fast memory AND a large amount of general purpose memory, again, I do not see this happening, consoles or maybe some tablets probably as it would be easier in one aspect to get the most out of the design, everything else really does not make sence at this point.
DDR-DDR2-DDR3-DDR4 and so on, for graphics it also went in that order(though few used GDDR4 overall) there was and is many reasons they went with GDDR5 and most products are using it and GDDR3 at the moment, cost-capacity-performance-less complexity. X gb of GDDR5 as a "pool" of memory really only makes sence for "closed" designs as I have already worded and pelo pointed out.
Consoles do have drivers, but there is very few "software" based for them, most of it is "baked" into the base bios and such, low level access, most of it is hard coded to my understanding e.g you access the hardware directly to make it do what you want and it is limited to certain things by design(close to metal) not nearly the same thing as the desktop environment which is hardcoded(close to metal) but also very much software driven(drivers) this is why we generally do not see major patches for consoles making the games look WAY better compared to desktop which happens all the time