3 ms·
AMD has been trying to find a synergy between CPUs and GPUs for over a decade. Heck they were the ones who bought ATI! They've been unable to deliver because "a
by frozenport 10y ago
AMD has been trying to find a synergy between CPUs and GPUs for over a decade. Heck they were the ones who bought ATI! They've been unable to deliver because "a synergy" between GPU and CPU doesn't mean very much.
In the best case, the architecture will be able to avoid memory copies, but although inconvenient, existing applications have been able to pipeline host-device/device-host memory copies, effectively negating the problem.
Even on this limited promise, AMD hasn't been able to deliver.
- geezerjay 10y ago> They've been unable to deliver because "a synergy" between GPU and CPU doesn't mean very much. Contrary to what you may believe, that "synergy" does mean a lot, considering that one of the worlds fastest supercomputers does run on Opterons and NVIDIA Tesla cards. The thing is, high-performance computing is a niche market. Yet typical consumer hardware needs aren't CPU-driven, but GPU driven. Computer games don't take advantage (or need) multi-core CPUs, thus AMD's bet on the 6-core and 8-core AMD FX line didn't paid off as it was expected. Yet, everyone needs a good GPU to run games, and the "synergy" between that the CPU delivers and the GPU processes ends up being the bottleneck in consumer hardware.
- frozenport 10y agoExcept you haven't told me what synergy means. Also the cpus mentioned have fused FP units, meaning their cores are more comparable to Intel's hyperthreads. They often failed to perform at i5 levels, and any small performance increase was offset by higher energy consumption.