looks to soon capitalize on its success as the new sales king of the
GPU market, by launching in early 2011 its
"Fusion" products, which puts a GPU and CPU together on
a single die.At the IFA
2010 trade show in Germany this week, AMD showed
off an 18W TDP Fusion system-on-a-chip (SOC) solution.
The chip combines dual Bobcat cores with
AMD graphics, in what AMD calls an Accelerated Processing Unit
(APU). The product is codenamed "Zacate"
and looks like it could make a splash on the notebook scene thanks to
its ability to decode 1080p video and play modern video games (all on
a lean power budget). Such a processor would be particularly
desirable to ultra-portable designs.Unfortunately for AMD it
isn't the only one cooking up an APU. Bloomberg is reporting that
Intel Chief Executive Officer Paul Otellini will show off his own
company's take on a GPU+CPU SOC at the Intel
Developer Forum in San Francisco next week.The
announcement creates in an interestingly competitive scenario -- AMD
arguably has more GPU experience and the better graphics hardware
technology. But Intel has had superior
CPU processing per dollar for some time now. John
Taylor, a spokesman for the Sunnyvale, California-based AMD is quick
to note his company's graphics edge, stating, "There are decades
of research and design that goes into our discrete graphics.
Intel has yet to deliver a product that has discrete-level
performance. Right now, it’s just claims."Of course
those are bold words coming from a company that has experienced
plenty of delays of its own in the past.Intel is reportedly
confident that it can outcompete AMD in terms of price. But its
integrated graphics processors thus far have been far from stellar
performers, to say the least. So who will pull off the APU
upset? The CPU champion, or the GPU grandmaster? The
financial stakes are high and the market is wide open; customers can
eagerly await a hard fought battle and the release of some exciting
new options in 2011.
quote: Anyone who knows about Intel's previous failed dedicated offerings know they have no idea what it takes to get a good GPU on the market.
quote: I was going against your stupid claim that AMD does not have said expertise
quote: I never said that at all.
quote: To date, Intel has utterly failed on the GPU front.
quote: AMD made a good choice to buy out ATI, but ATI did all the legwork and laid in the technical foundation for powerful GPUs with their Radeon brand...simply because the tech is marketed under AMD's banner does not warrant giving credit to AMD for the technical aspects of the product. AMD made a good business move but there is no props for technical innovation due.
quote: Intel has utterly failed on the dedicated GPU front. In terms of actual video chipset units sold, Intel is the leader. Their integrated graphics solutions ship more units than ATI and nVidia combined. I agree with you that Intel has failed laughably at the mid- and high-end GPU market. But at the low end where low cost, value, and low power draw are priorities, Intel is king. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367210,00.as...
quote: I really wish AMD and nVidia would make more than a token effort to compete in this low-end low-power market. I suspect with their expertise they could make a much better-performing integrated video card than Intel with the same power consumption. Which I suppose is what this move by AMD is all about - challenging Intel's dominance of the integrated video chipset market.
quote: Q: Can Intel utilise the knowledge of even a competent GPU design team into their fusion CPU/GPUs?
quote: Does everyone seem to think that the largest and most successful chip manufacturer in history couldn't make a world class GPU if need be? It's ok to play brand favorites, just don't be naive about it.
quote: Sales will most likely be driven by Intel's name
quote: Intel has never released a good GPU of any kind
quote: Intel has never released a good GPU of any kind,
quote: Your i7-930 $100 cheaper than a 1090T is not representative of the usual prices. As of today both processors sell around $290 +/- $10 on Newegg, Amazon, etc. So AMD has the perf/price advantage in this comparison (6-core 3.2GHz, vs. 4-core 2.8GHz: no contest).
quote: I always thought that Intel consistently had much higher prices for their chips thus lowering the price/performance ratio.
quote: That being said, if both are equal are you truly trying to say that the average user will splurge for the more expensive but more powerful offerings? Even though the lower end offering offers just as much value for what you are paying for it?
quote: A Q9550/9650 owner to this day still has NO reason to change to an i7 or i5.
quote: You're not getting the -1 for defending Intel, you're getting the -1 for attacking other posters
quote: Take a look at your last paragraph as an example. In case you don't understand how people work, let me answer your final question. He is talking about his opinion on the i7. He believes it was hyped up at the time.
quote: When is the last time Intel actually....innovated?
quote: At the IFA 2010 trade show in Germany this week, AMD showed off an 18W TDP Fusion system-on-a-chip (SOC) solution.