Next-gen AMD Fusion CPU + GPU Coming in 2015

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
The fusion version 2015 is really like ferni and normal cpu in one packet, so it really is something that you can look for. It can be more than the sum of it's part, but it is allso long way to go. Even larrabee can be really out (maybe) in that time, or Intel may pull rabit out of CPU and do the same before, but when we think how "good" those Intel GPU's has been, even next year CPU+GPU combination form ATI is in good position to be faster than Intel solution by then. In CPU department Intel has the lead. No doupt, but the combination of these two products is a little bit different beast.

I am not going to die within the next 60 years (hopefully ;-), so I will see many new things like this in my lifetime. Just have to hope that in the mean time AMD can keep it up and don't fall too far behind the BIG Intel.
IMHO I think that AMD can only take steps behind the Intel and try to avoid the any unforeseen difficulties the Intel may stumble when it leads on the development, and try to make competitive products with proven technology, with less risks. Any technological step reguires money, and Intel just have more of it!
 
Good to see [citation][nom]hundredislandsboy[/nom]Don't hate, congratulate!I recently "converted" to AMD CPUs and haven't looked back. Am about to upgrade my 955BE to Thuban hexcore for faster video editing.[/citation]

LOL you poor sod. If you really were serious about video encoding, you would have a 6 core i7 that's over twice as fast as that POS thuban.
 
POS thuban? I7 hex is Twice the speed? Sure, and 3.5 times the cost too.
 
[citation][nom]hundredislandsboy[/nom]Intel who? Go AMD!! Along with the GPU, if they can throw in the audio, LAN, and a TB SSD in the CPU die, then I'll be impressed because my desktop won't be the noisy tower it is now.If you had a dual socket system mobo and threw in two of these, is that considered SLI?[/citation]

I think you're taking the term SoC (System-on-Chip) way too literal.
 
well, seeing as how intel has already dumped a GPU + cpu on one chip, I'd have to ask what is taking so long? but their future plans do sound interesting! sounds like on the surface it will look like your computer is just one big larrabee, but under the hood it will still use a level headed cpu+gpu setup. still interested to see if someone can make just one chip for everything! like larrabee! like sony tried to do with the ps3! and are rumoured to be trying again with the psp2
 
The Fusion that almost matches a 5770 is what is coming out either late this year or early next year. Oh and from what I heard, it is as powerful as a 5570, not a 5770. But still an integrated GPU with direct memory access will be something worth seeing, even if it is tacked on as somewhat of an afterthought. This sort of design could win a lot of places for use if it is effective at doing its job. This is really what we should be looking for. Does it offer what we need for an affordable price, low temp output, and small form factor? If it can do all three of these things, I think it will be interesting. What I don't understand how people read the article and thought that the first fusion chip isn't coming out til 2015? It states very clearly the second generation of Fusion is slated for 2015. Second generation. Meaning that the first gen product is a little sooner. I may not be the sharpest tack in the box, but I still understood what was meant.
 
[citation][nom]ram1009[/nom]Five years is an eternity in the computer business. I wouldn't get too excited or dismayed about this.[/citation]
yeah... its massive. 5 years ago, we got a P4 with 7900gt for like $3k aud. now for $3k, its like i7, dual 5850s..crazy
 
read amd's whitepaper a year ago on Fusion and is very convincing. intel is starting that path with larrabee. i just hope that intel does not come out with this part earlier.
 
what about gamers?
i think they would buy latest graphics cards and just depend on the independent cpus without integrated gpus or the higher end cpu,because they won't get the high end graphics from these cpu+gpu.After all what can we expect from integrated gpus.These will benefit only the low end users who does not want to spend money on the gpus.
AMD,pls bring out the bulldozers as early.Can't wait to how they will outperform the other processors
 
This might sound like a good idea, but I do think that it is only a transition to a single computer brain that will be responsible for everything. Probably just a legacy issue, for running "old" software.
 


LOL, you rich SOD. Why pay 5 times as much for twice the performance? Before I buy a 5 core i7, for the same price I'd rather get a dual socket mobo and put in two 8-core AMD Opterons. 16 cores versus 6 fore the same price?!?!

Lol at your wasteful idea. If you were really serious about value, you 'd know AMD gives more bang for the buck!
 
So, they reinvented the Cell processor (1 PPC core and 7 SPE's, which form my understanding, are about the same thing as a GPU core).
But unlike IBM, they're sharing them with the rest of the world in systems that cost less than $10,000 or in a PS3. :)

Phenom II x6 sitting beside a 5770 please.
Though, will the GPU have dedicated memory or not? A graphics card typically has several times the memory bandwidth of normal system RAM.
 
Why do we care about 2015? We certainly didn't care about 2010 back in 2005.... well, I didn't. The furthest I would look ahead in the tech market is 24-36 months, and even then- so much could change in the mean time.
 
[citation][nom]idisarmu[/nom]Why do we care about 2015? We certainly didn't care about 2010 back in 2005.... well, I didn't. The furthest I would look ahead in the tech market is 24-36 months, and even then- so much could change in the mean time.[/citation]


Being a consumer that makes complete sense. If your the developer of the stuff, you should really be looking at least 5 yrs ahead, gotta have a plan
 
[citation][nom]jerreece[/nom]How do you pull ahead by being 5 years behind? LOL I mean, AMD's plan is probably further integration than what Intel has on their i3 line, but still. It's like announcing in 2010 that you've created a new digital camera that prints it's own pictures right after you take them! (Polaroid)What AMD/ATI needs to do is CATCH UP with Intel. AMD is doing well now simply because of pricing, not because of overall performance compared to Intel. That's why my last two CPUs have been Intel (the first Intel chips I've used).[/citation]
well if you're only looking at the best performance on the market, you're right - AMD is behind, but that's all relative. just because a chip isn't the fastest on the market doesn't mean it isn't fast enough for what you need. tomshardware wrote an article a little while ago showing that intel's i3 is good enough for gaming. the i3 is a dual-core and priced at the same level as AMD's phenom II quad-core 925. AMD is the better bargain, and in that respect, AMD is ahead of intel. in my opinion, intel and AMD are almost not even competitors because they cater to two different demographics (rich vs modest). if you're rich, you might as well go with intel to get that extra speed boost, but if you're on a budget like the rest of us, AMD is a no-brainer. AMD doesn't need to have the fastest chip on the market, they just need to have chips fast enough for gaming at affordable prices, and they succeed at this beautifully whereas intel is far behind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom