SUBMAN1
09-19-07, 02:48 PM
I wondered when we would hear from Intel on AMD's Fusion. I think they may be scared of AMD's lead in this area.
-S
IDF Fall 007 Nehalem's CPU+GPU comes with speeding up the process adoption
By Theo Valich in San Francisco (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:__doPostBack%28%27article_body$lnkEmailForm%2 7,%27%27%29): Tuesday 18 September 2007, 22:31
INTEL IS PROMISING a ten-fold increase in performance of integrated graphics within two years. And after that, another ten-fold increase. In short, Intel promised that by 2010 or 11, integrated graphics will become drastically faster than they are today. Intel's keynote outlined the fact that integrated graphics have always lagged a generation behind the actual manufacturing process, with current stuff being manufactured in 90nm. In 2008, this will be updated to 65nm process -as the old Conroes and Meroms depart from the production line, space will be made for next-generation chipsets. But in the first half of 2009 we will see CPU and GPU being manufactured at the same manufacturing process, and that is 45nm.
The secret lies in the fact that Nehalem will be a modular marchitecture, and one of things that will be integrated is the graphics part, offering a strong performance and clock increase over the current situation.
While the numbers Intel mentioned above are great (10x with first-generation CPU+GPU silicon, another 10x with second gen), we should not omit the fact that integrated graphics need a dramatic increase in performance over today's situation.
Also, there is a catch with the integrated graphics chippery of today - it actually does not run most popular games, and if they run, they look like they came from stone age of texturing. Run F.E.A.R. on Intel Integrated graphics now, and you’ll get several frames per second (300-400 fpm). Compared to discrete parts, even ones in the mainstream, $100 range, where frame-rates are at 30-40 a second (1800-2500 fpm), it is clear that integrated graphics need to get up by 10x to get to bare minimum of playability. Of course, comparing G33 parts with ATI Radeon 2600 or Nvidia GeForce 8600 is very hard, since G965 and G33 cannot render more complex shaders, so an pple to apple comparison is rather problematic.
Bear in mind that a 10-fold increase in performance would raise the frame-rate from current 4-5 fps to acceptable 40-50 (not mentioning rendering quality), but we're comparing 2009 part with something you can buy for months now, so this excludes the performance figures from 2009-10 discrete parts.
For integrated performance to get onto the same page as discrete parts, we need to see 30-40x at least. Luckily, with Larrabee concept and other upcoming parts, graphics performance in Intel's camp will radically increase. µ
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42439
-S
IDF Fall 007 Nehalem's CPU+GPU comes with speeding up the process adoption
By Theo Valich in San Francisco (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:__doPostBack%28%27article_body$lnkEmailForm%2 7,%27%27%29): Tuesday 18 September 2007, 22:31
INTEL IS PROMISING a ten-fold increase in performance of integrated graphics within two years. And after that, another ten-fold increase. In short, Intel promised that by 2010 or 11, integrated graphics will become drastically faster than they are today. Intel's keynote outlined the fact that integrated graphics have always lagged a generation behind the actual manufacturing process, with current stuff being manufactured in 90nm. In 2008, this will be updated to 65nm process -as the old Conroes and Meroms depart from the production line, space will be made for next-generation chipsets. But in the first half of 2009 we will see CPU and GPU being manufactured at the same manufacturing process, and that is 45nm.
The secret lies in the fact that Nehalem will be a modular marchitecture, and one of things that will be integrated is the graphics part, offering a strong performance and clock increase over the current situation.
While the numbers Intel mentioned above are great (10x with first-generation CPU+GPU silicon, another 10x with second gen), we should not omit the fact that integrated graphics need a dramatic increase in performance over today's situation.
Also, there is a catch with the integrated graphics chippery of today - it actually does not run most popular games, and if they run, they look like they came from stone age of texturing. Run F.E.A.R. on Intel Integrated graphics now, and you’ll get several frames per second (300-400 fpm). Compared to discrete parts, even ones in the mainstream, $100 range, where frame-rates are at 30-40 a second (1800-2500 fpm), it is clear that integrated graphics need to get up by 10x to get to bare minimum of playability. Of course, comparing G33 parts with ATI Radeon 2600 or Nvidia GeForce 8600 is very hard, since G965 and G33 cannot render more complex shaders, so an pple to apple comparison is rather problematic.
Bear in mind that a 10-fold increase in performance would raise the frame-rate from current 4-5 fps to acceptable 40-50 (not mentioning rendering quality), but we're comparing 2009 part with something you can buy for months now, so this excludes the performance figures from 2009-10 discrete parts.
For integrated performance to get onto the same page as discrete parts, we need to see 30-40x at least. Luckily, with Larrabee concept and other upcoming parts, graphics performance in Intel's camp will radically increase. µ
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42439