2008, 2009, and Beyond: The Future of AMD
http://www.hwupgrade.com/articles/cpu/14/the-future-of-amd_4.html

No more CPU wars?? in 2010??

The plan is by 2010, that means we might begin to see it by 2015....

2015! I would be dead by then....curse you Grim Rapper!

LOL, Torrenza is coming out in Q3 to Q4 2007, if not earlier, so you can tell the Grim Reaper (Grim Rapper) to go back to where IT came from

And 2010 don't seem too far off, as for 2015? No, If any delay I would say maybe 2011 or bellow.

i think by 2010, i would have lost interest in computers and take them for granted, by 2015, no longer using computers for games.

If AMD doesn't come up with something better than that in the CPU division, they best prepare to get raped.

GPUs on CPU dies is simply ludacris especially considering high performance demands. CPU is a generalized processor while a GPU is specific. Combine to two together and it more than doubles the memory load. GDDR variations of memory are often substantially faster than plain DDR memory which is why they have always been separate. Tell me the last time a graphics card with system compatible DDR chips was "fast." There isn't any--it's a cost cutting route. And, what if the GPU fails when it's on-die? Assuming it dies peacefully, you'll have to put in a new graphics card. If it doesn't die peacefully and disallows the CPUs to function, then what? I still don't see anything good coming out of this. Yes, it might save you a buck or two on the CPU but I'd rather pay a buck or two more to get the GPU on the motherboard than on the CPU. I see a whole lot of buying something you'll never use coming out of this.

Oh, and no matter how much they tell you it will increase CPU performance (FPU in particular), it still won't be as good as a CELL processor with an equal number of FPUs.

As ludacris as it may sound to some, this is the way of the future. If anybody can make a GPU & CPU on one die that would be AMD. They are targeting these Fusion chips for low power notebooks, so don't worry, you will still be able to buy a Dual/Quad/Multi - Core CPU's & loads of independant Graphics Cards.

People need to get used what is about to happen. Things are going to change in the near future. And the future of Fusion & Torrenza are a very large Positive IMO. My stock buddies seem to agree with me

Nice pep talk but I'm not buying it. I see a lot more future in CELL than I do in Fusion. Fusion is like trying to mix oil and water--it doesn't work.

Well, only time will tell.

Yes, Oil & Water don't mix, unless you use an additive, where is this case AMD is

AMD can't perform miracles. Intel had the capability to merge a GPU and a CPU together for decades but they didn't for one simple reason: there's no reason too. I'm not sure why AMD thinks they can rewrite history. It seems very illogical and if I were an AMD investor, I would be gravely concerned.

The PC market was founded on a non-proprietary foundation with IBM. I see this as a step away from that foundation. Look what happened to Apple.

Look at it this way: would you rather buy a CPU with a GPU embeded on it or a motherboard with a GPU on it? Which seems more economical? Which seems more practical? People like choices, no? Can you mix and match CPU/GPU Fusion processors and see a vast difference in performance when you mix and match a CPU and a video card? Since you practically worship AMD, I don't need to hear your response because I already know it but, think it through.

I understand your point. AMD obviously knows something we don't know. And the investors look interested.

Now, if AMD can pull off a CPU/GPU, that would be great, but there will always be an empty PCIE slot to play with if you want to add a faster video card.

Think about it, if AMD can pull this one off, which I am sure they will, then they promise equal or better performance, but with less volts which = longer battery life. I really think they are targeting thin & light notebooks with this project.

Anyway, your point is well taken, it only leaves AMD to make this Fusion work, and so far they seem quite confident in there progress.

We will come back to this conversation when Fusion it finaly released.

S_U_P_E_R X_P said:
When's the last time you bought a motherboard with a onboard video when you planned to buy a video card as well? Likewise, why would you want to buy a CPU with a GPU when you know you are going to buy a video card as well?

S_U_P_E_R X_P said:
The only difference in battery life is on which process the onboard GPU is made on. We're talking a very small difference. What kills battery life in laptops in regards to video is running it's own separate memory modules which Fusion does not allow. We're talking no more than 20w difference here at most for equal performance which adds up to only a few minutes difference in battery life for cheaper.

A motherboard manufacturer can slap a GeForce 6100 chipset on their motherboard just as easily as AMD can slap a X100 on their CPU but, it is way out of line for AMD to be doing that considering how unalike GPUs and CPUs are--oil and water. AMD's approach is so counter-intuitive and ridiculous that I find it quite repulsive. We'll see. 2008-2009 is a long way off yet. There's a good chance the concept is simply dropped as K9 and K10 were.

Here's something else to think about, Super. If you wanted to upgrade your GPU, you'd be forced to upgrade your CPU at the same time, which is just a pointless waste or money, unless you're shooting or a total system upgrade. If I want to upgrade to an X1950, I shouldnt have to upgrade to a Core Duo or Core 2 Duo just for that. I should be able to keep my current processor, and maybe upgrade it separately later. It just seems pointless.

The only thing they'd be gaining by this is space efficiency, i.e. more airflow in the case, but it would be a very slim gain.

Especially considering how much real estate is still available on ATX boards. For crying out loud, they fit two processors, four DIMMs, and two Northbridges or two processors and eight DIMMs one one ATX board. The only place where space should be a concern is Mini-ITX boards. In that case, they just cram a GPU into a chipset and call it good. Considering that when the GPU is in the chipset, it can still have its own dedicated memory which still puts it way above GPU/CPU in one. Very slim indeed. Oil and water...

All I can see is that this is shooting for making high end computational and presentation technology a consumer commodity. They ARE recognizing the need for higher computational and rendering speed through the use of special purpose cores, but this is nothing new....anyone remember the AMIGA?!? The only new thing here is that instead of separate packages, they are being incorporated into a single package. This makes a future computer a commodity...when was the last time you tweaked your toaster (bread that is...the Amiga Video Toaster was way before it's time!)?
Integration and miniturization are just steps to make what is now available separately into a packaged whole; not a bad thing for most users, but a minimization of the capability for tweaking or hacking the hardware, something that is detrimental to early adopter/hacker (in this I am using the old school interpretation of a hacker) to push the envelope...but we've been there before.
All in all, just a minituration of technologies that date from the 1970s.
The same can be said of CELL and other "emerging" technologies....nothing new.

Gerritt

At this point.... it is a toss up as if this is going to be a big player in their product line or just another segment in their product offerings. But i am trying to look at it from a bigger picture of where i think it will exists...

I can see it working but in only certain areas of computing. that being in the laptop and in lowend/budget desktop computing. I think of it in the realm of ...... buy the product.... use it... and then throw it away. Then start the cycle again.

When was the last time you seen someone upgrade a laptop's cpu and gpu? you dont, well at least for 95% most of the time not...

What about the really lowend budget type desktops.? the 3~400.00 jobbers.... for the most part... the consumers buy it use it and then get another one in 4yrs. Obviously it would never make it in the mid to highend systems.

But for us it would never work. because we like to buy our components separately and we know what we want each component to be or how much we can afford each component to be. The freedom of choice. With gpu/cpu combo.... you are stuck with the combo they set.

I think there is going to be a certain sector that it will work Just not in the same sectors as with us. So with Torrenza or Fusion.... I kinda look at it as part of AMD portfolio... diversity in a company's offerings. Just like Intel's VAST other products, chipsets, gpu, networks, motherboards, micro controllers, bridges, flash memories, raid controllers, etc, etc, etc,...... Whereas with AMD.... all we know of them prior to the buyout of ATI, I only know AMD to make desktop and server processors....

Great point’s guys. Fusion is one among other technologies AMD plans on releasing. It also kind of makes sense for the notebook market.

With the CPU & GPU integrated into a single die, they are directly connected via HTT. There must be benefits in CPU to GPU communications vs. the traditional approach?

Anyway, only time will tell,

Torrenza is a different story, looks like they are targeting this for the server & workstation market, but at the same time will not leave out the Desktop & gamers behind, and a benefit I may add.
You can completely customize your system with added co-processing specific to what you need the system for. I don’t know, it just sounds good.

This benefits everybody, seeing AMD & Intel hard at work to release better stuff in the overall.

In the traditional way.... cpu uses DDR, DDR2, and now coming DDR3 The gpu uses GDDR....

GDDR is faster than DDR variant..... if Fusion marriages a gpu with cpu on one die...... where does the gpu gets it use of memory ???? system memory or is there going to be GDDR built onto the mb... ??? if the gpu used the system memory .... then isnt that going to cause slower performance versus the gpu having a dedicated GDDR ????

G. G. said:

Point well taken, but AMD wouldn't be doing this so called Fusion if they thought it would not work.

Anyway, I think there will be an advanced version of the current CrossBar-Switch which will be used for comunication or something? I don't know, they havent released enough info at the time.

Either way, AMD only knows right now. All I got to say is it will do what they expect it to do.

Interesting read:

Quote:


Link:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061119-8250.html

FordGT90Concept said:

What if the onboard were like 8800GTX? There will come a time that the CPU with GPU will be in everyones computers. Eventually we be able to render graphics that look like real life and then there is no more need for another graphics card.