Quote:

---

they're combining CPU and GPU into a single processor.

---

Quote:

---

(the brayings of a senile old man)

---

Quote:

---

Sam,
[quote]they're combining CPU and GPU into a single processor.

---

Originally posted by marsey99:

---

intel have been on about the same thing but with a physics proc.

they dont know what to to do with a four core processor.

---

Originally posted by theonejrs:

---

baltekmi,
Well for one thing it could be made to interact with high end graphics cards that would be cheaper because video control would be right on the CPU/GPU for starters. Sort of like a supercharger for graphics. Video could be keyed right to the CPU instead of the PCIe x16 bus which should allow faster graphics. The point is whatever they do with it should be worth while. I don't think that the intended use is for on-board graphics. Just think of the possibilities of a graphics controller running at CPU speed and the benefits you would get from something like that. DMA for graphics with the shortest pipelines imaginable. The future will tell all!

One thing is for sure, AMD wouldn't do it if it wasn't worth while! They are not about to shoot themselves in the foot and dump graphics cards to put the video all on the CPU/GPU.
So what you are saying is the vidio card is not actually on the chip, just grapics controller bypassing the buss?

Happy Computering,
theone

---

Originally posted by marsey99:

---

if you had read some news, you might of seen somthing to come out of the idf back in sept when the intel boss typed "i hate amd" onto a giant screen. during the same speech he also said that he belived that the kentfields would benifit the gamers the most as they could have a game running on 1 or 2 cores use another to process physics and leave 1 or 2 to do the mundane things like defragg or virus check.


now i didnt say i was a dedicated physics proc, but like how a gpu is only a gpu til its programmed to do something else, eg folding@home, the same can be said for cpu's.


now like i said it was a news story and the site on which i read it only keeps the full article untill the end of the month. now if you want to trawl through all the posts from around the end of sept/ start of oct i am sure you will find a full extract from this speach as i posted it then.


but please if you can think of an app that truely needs to be ran on 4 cores please tell me and i can then let intel and amd know. last time i asked around most still get confused by 2 cores, god only knows what they will do if they see 4.


as for amd/ati, ati get use all amds old fab plants 90 and soon the 65nm ones for their gpus and amd get a company who can design them the chipsets to get the best out of thier future chips at the same time they are designing them(k10 or will they go kx?) and will help in the design of their own platform in the battle against intels viiv and all conquoring centrino. win win(and maybe a new mobo design with a on cpu graphics controller).

---

Originally posted by crowy:

---

I'm thinking a cpu/gpu combo + memory slot/slots.

IE: Buy a 3ghz cpu with built in gpu:model abc,for $100.
Buy a 3ghz cpu with built in gpu:model xyz, for $200.
So have the same cpu with different gpu options.
Have dedicated Memory slots for the gpu,totally separate from system memory.
So you could have 2gb system memory,and say 2gb gpu memory for example.

---

Originally posted by theonejrs:

---

marsey99,

I can see the Kentsfield quad core being mainly for servers. I just don't see it in the average home computer, at least not in the near future. I just don't see the game designers running right out and revamping all thier games for quad cores when the Conroe platform will do just fine. Heat is going to be a major issue as well. 4 even relatively low power cores are going to make a fair amount of heat in a small amount of space.

What I can see is the AMD CPU/GPU concept working out to AMD's advantage as there's a lot that can be accomplished that way. Build it in such a way as to let the on chip GPU control the whole video process and you could have some very stunning and fast graphics. I don't see AMD/ATi doing it for on-board graphics. It's just not worth it as it would be cheaper to put the graphics on the motherboard like they do now. Who in thier right mind would want to have to replace a CPU to upgrade thier graphics as it would be too expensive. Like I said in my post to Baltekmi, I can see it as a supercharger for the graphics card! That would make more sense. I could even see video cards designed with that very idea in mind!

Happy Computering,
theone

---

Quote:

---

I am sure the price of the kentsfield at first will negate any surge to purchase one to encode, considering the amd price and performance outweighs the cost of what the kentsfield will be.

---

Quote:

---

intels pockets are deep enough to take the hit.

---

Quote:

---

since amd posted result last month showing a 5% drop in profits their stock has nose dived somewhat, at the same time intels 10% drop in profit has had no effect on its stocks continued rise.

---