07-15-2010, 01:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-15-2010, 02:01 PM by nosisab Ken Keleh.)
Things changes over time, at first AMD (era athlon x pentium until recently) was way faster for the same clock (a more complex architecture). Was Intel that needed to pump clocks to keep the pace.
The panorama inverted again with i7, that uses the same concept introduced by AMD long ago, and now is AMD that falls behind and it's known the current architecture is not a concurrent for the Penryn. Strangely AMD is too quiet and reserved in it's roadmap, the only real sign of changes is the announce of advances in interfacing the CPU-GPU on die.
I'm not an Intel or AMD fanboy, much by the contrary, I see the competition as good for technology and mainly for the end user. The reasons I avoid Intel products today are from other nature and irrelevant to the current discussion (notice than whatever it comes the competition is yet and always good, the worse scenery is without one of them).
It's deceptive to think that integration between the CPU-GPU is meant to substitute the video card, It would be stupid for AMD and ATI if that was the real purpose (still it will look as such for starters). The evolution on nowadays processing power is less focused on raw speed and the revolution almost certainly will come from hardware implementation of the PPU concept, something not so new but not well implemented yet. Besides it's an answer to Nvidia advances in Cp and Cuda.
Maybe it is not faraway the day where complex physics and codes relying on feedback from actions and consequences will be reality in a level not possible today... simulators, and I'm not talking about games, are a main target to that.
PS: In a wild guess it would not be a surprise Nvidia and not Intel is the main AMD today concern.
The panorama inverted again with i7, that uses the same concept introduced by AMD long ago, and now is AMD that falls behind and it's known the current architecture is not a concurrent for the Penryn. Strangely AMD is too quiet and reserved in it's roadmap, the only real sign of changes is the announce of advances in interfacing the CPU-GPU on die.
I'm not an Intel or AMD fanboy, much by the contrary, I see the competition as good for technology and mainly for the end user. The reasons I avoid Intel products today are from other nature and irrelevant to the current discussion (notice than whatever it comes the competition is yet and always good, the worse scenery is without one of them).
It's deceptive to think that integration between the CPU-GPU is meant to substitute the video card, It would be stupid for AMD and ATI if that was the real purpose (still it will look as such for starters). The evolution on nowadays processing power is less focused on raw speed and the revolution almost certainly will come from hardware implementation of the PPU concept, something not so new but not well implemented yet. Besides it's an answer to Nvidia advances in Cp and Cuda.
Maybe it is not faraway the day where complex physics and codes relying on feedback from actions and consequences will be reality in a level not possible today... simulators, and I'm not talking about games, are a main target to that.
PS: In a wild guess it would not be a surprise Nvidia and not Intel is the main AMD today concern.
Imagination is where we are truly real