IGPU: mobo vs. cpu?

[butremor]

Hello.
So recently i've got to thinking. There is these relatively new technology of gpu being integrated in CPU. And there is rather old gpu being integrated in mobo.
Both provide graphics to the rig. Both drain from ram. Both being integrated. But which one is better? In terms of power consumption and performance, other terms. I don't know, but something tells me, that even there's cpu+gpu available, manufacturers didn't stop selling(developing?) mobo+gpu.
So, my question is who beats who? Which technology is more advanced? Which will cease to exist? What are main pros and cons?
Cheers.

[Posted in here, because, cpu and mobo subforums seem partially related, but main focus is on gpu, and this is gpu subforum]

 

[jmsellars1]

I think integrating it into the CPU will be more popular, power constraints for a mobo are usually like 10-20W. CPU's are usually 65-140W.

 

[manofchalk]

I thought that graphics on the mobo had already been phased out.
Given that every modern Intel chip (except the 2011 platform) has some form of integrated graphics and AMD are now making a selling point of it with their APU's, that's the way its going to develop.

 

[Grass Peer]

Integrating graphics processing on the CPU die offers a lot of advantages in performance and efficiency and getting the GPU off the mainboard reduces motherboard complexity and costs which will result in a better and less costly motherboard but a little more expensive CPU though it's still possibly cheaper than a discrete GPU die.

 

[Clayman1000x]

I am agreeing with Grass Peer and manofchalk to a point, but I don't think that configuration by itself will work for most gamers, they will still need a dedicated card to run games on high, I also thought that you could use the APU alongside a graphics card in a dual configuration, I was thinking I read that somewhere.

 

[manofchalk]

For proper gaming you will always need a dedicated GPU, it will be a long time yet before integrated graphics approaches the performance of current low end GPU's. Chances are by then the standards will have changed and it will as relatively inadequate then as it is now.
Yep, the APU's can run in a hybrid crossfire with selected AMD GPU's. Which particular one you can use will depend on the chip.

 

[blazorthon]

AMD's flagship of their next APU series is expected to at least have graphics performance comparable to the Radeon 7750 DDR3, if not better, so I wouldn't say that we're a long ways off from getting APUs comparable to current low-end discrete cards. Even now, the Trinity A10s can easily keep pace with the Radeon 6670 DDR3 when they're paired with decent memory, so I might go as far as saying that they've already managed to play with the current low-end cards.

 

[butremor]

AMD's flagship of their next APU series is expected to at least have graphics performance comparable to the Radeon 7750 DDR3, if not better, so I wouldn't say that we're a long ways off from getting APUs comparable to current low-end discrete cards. Even now, the Trinity A10s can easily keep pace with the Radeon 6670 DDR3 when they're paired with decent memory, so I might go as far as saying that they've already managed to play with the current low-end cards.

When are they expected to launch? And what codename will be?

 

[blazorthon]

When are they expected to launch? And what codename will be?

It's supposed to launch in 2013 and if I remember correctly, it is code-named Kaveri.

 

[butremor]

And what was the highest point reached by graphics integrated to motherboard?

 

[blazorthon]

Into the motherboard? Well, I don't know. Common motherboard IGPs never got past the Ati Radeon 4290 IIRC, IE weak compared even to Intel's weakest HD 4000, let alone to AMD's desktop A8 and A10 IGPs. There may have been a few oddball motherboards with a more potent graphics card built into the board, but not that I'm aware of.

 

[donnyberger23]

Integrated GPU's are the best ones you can get

 

[j2j663]

And what was the highest point reached by graphics integrated to motherboard?

The Graphics Card review that THs does every month has all of the information for mobile graphics and integrated graphics in on the last page. They are all ranked and sorted out compared to every other card.

For example the integrated HD4250 that was integrated into my old mobo is pretty far down the list. But the graphics paired with the A10 is the integrated HD 7660D which is much higher up the chart and usually competes with all of the DDR3 cards from the last couple of generations.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

 

[blazorthon]

It doesn't have all of the information nor nearly all, just FYI. It is very oversimplified to make a basic point of reference. For example, simply using DDR3-2133 10-10-10-30 or about that instead of DDR3-1066 7-7-7-19 or about that as your system memory in many AMD APU based computers can be a huge graphics performance difference. Capacity can also matter, but only in specific situations. Different drivers can also throw things around, as can the CPU and more (some graphics configurations are more affected by the CPU and background workloads in workloads that depend on both CPU and graphics performance than other graphics configurations).

 

[truegenius]

imo
amd is integrating gpu on die because they are going HSA route, so it is essential/mandatory to integrate them on same die

intel just want to make more power efficient overall system and going SOC route so as to tackle portable pc (laptop/tablet/smartphone) market

cpus uses relatively small node (22nm vs 65nm for ivy bridge cpu vs chipset) so it will save much more power by integrating them on cpu

integrating them on cpu will result in faster interconnections without using/wasting more power which is needed for hsa and soc too (better gaming and apps performance by reducing latency for communication between cpu and gpu)