[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"][QUOTE="superclocked"]I imagine that they're going to eventually have really good GPU's on the CPU die, which would give better performance in games than Intel/nVidia, and the system would consume less power too. That would only be a temporary patch though. Intel has it's own rapidly developing GPU dept, and I'm sure that Intel would have no problems partnering with nVidia to develop something better if they had to. AMD really needs to take advantage of aquiring ATI in the window that they have. Making high-end APU's for desktops would be a way to do that.. And they need to look even further than that really. My guess is that the next step for desktops would be upgradeability options of both components while keeping things as they are with APU's, affordable and power efficient. Placing the GPU and CPU side by side on a new type of motherboard, each being independently upgradeable, and each with it's own socket and RAM slots, may be one way to achieve that end, and stay in the game for the long haul...superclocked
I wouldn't call the years and years it's taken them to get to "meh performance with terrible IQ" rapidly developing.
Except they've done everything they can to put nvidia out of any market they compete with them in.
How is that any different than a discrete graphics card?
1) Our Sony Vaio has an Intel HD 3000, and it can play any new game that I've tried on low settings. That's quite a feat considering my past exerience with Intel integrated graphics..
2) That may be true, but we teamed up with Stalin in WW2 to defeat Hitler , even though he was worse than Hitler . Both companies would do whatever they have to in order to stay alive. And a hypothetical scenario like this would take many, many years to play out anyway..
3) It's right there in the sentence that you quoted. "Each being independently upgradeable, and each with it's own socket and RAM slots.." Upgradeability, performance, who knows what they could do with a setup like that.. I would love to grab 4GB of 1600MHz DDR3 for $30 and upgrade my VRAM, or buy something like a 6970 GPU for about $75 and replace the current GPU in my fictional motherboard, but the only way to upgrade either one is to buy an entirely new videocard. It's just another potential way to make existing technology better. Years ago, people here doubted me when I said that AMD and ATI were going to get together and put CPU's and GPU's on the same chip die for obvious reasons, and that ended up happening. I'm not saying that an idea like this would win out over APU's, but it would be better than current setups IMO... EDIT: Glitch? It won't let me put puncuation marks behind Hitler's name. Gamespot makes me skip a space for some reason. Very odd, lol...
1) With extremely reduced quality. Intel cuts A LOT of corners to get the bland performance they are getting
2) good point you never know
3)Video cards used to be more upgradable than they are today. 10 years ago, if you were cool with your 2d, you only needed to switch out your 3d card, and your 3d card had expansion slots for more memory.
We are moving towards integration, not away from it. If 3dfx hadn't integrated 2d cards with 3d cards and if nvidia hadn't bought aegia and if we still had upgradable ram in the 3d cards we'd have 3 seperate cards in our computer, 1 for 2d, one for 3d and 1 for physx, the 3d card coming with the capability to grab extra ram.
Graphics cards already come with a standardized connection to your computer, the PCI-E port, there is no reason to make the gpu/ram on the video card removable. Making the gpu a removable socket, they'd have to worry about the 570 and the 560 being backwards compatible for the socket type etc
Besides 4 gigs of 1600mhz ddr3 is a downgrade from my 2gig 1250MHz GDDR5 (at the same bus width the ddr3 will transfer 51GB/s while the gddr5 is 160 GB/s which is nearly 4 times faster)
Log in to comment