3 ms·

I don't know if the GPU integration is actually a negative, though - Intel's doing the same thing these days and doing well enough, and they both don't waste di

I don't know if the GPU integration is actually a negative, though - Intel's doing the same thing these days and doing well enough, and they both don't waste die space on integrated GPUs for their server lines. I think they just needed to have the next major line with enough time to try to respond to the P-M/Core switch to really knock it out of the park...and we got Bulldozer instead, where they bet big on trying to partition resources and a different notion of distinct "cores", and didn't come out ahead.

static_noise 10y ago
The GPU integration as such isn't a problem but they threw together two teams who had a vastly different approach. That is an organizational problem. With AMD I think that the influence of the GPU team grew too big. Now AMD has better GPUs while intel struggles in that area. Yes, I almost forgot the resulting Bulldozer fiasco. I believe that was a result of applying GPU thinking to CPUs.
- rincebrain 10y ago
  And now Zen comes out of forming an entirely new round of people. The amount of money lost from that particular issue, if that was the cause, boggles the mind. (It's too bad that AMD didn't wind up on top so far in the GPGPU area - if they had, all that GPU influence being a problem probably would be much easier to write off.) Intel struggles in that area? AFAIK the only problem Intel struggles with, GPU-wise, is that they appear to loathe the idea of making discrete GPUs, so they're constantly trying to figure out how to make a fast GPU in an acceptable on-package area. I was under the impression that AMD's on-die GPUs, while (possibly? I haven't tested their on-die GPUs in a few generations) nicer than Intel's, were still not something to write home about.
  - detaro 10y ago
    For a while I saw AMDs APUs recommended quite a bit for cheap HTPCs and light gaming machines.

static_noise 10y ago

The GPU integration as such isn't a problem but they threw together two teams who had a vastly different approach. That is an organizational problem. With AMD I think that the influence of the GPU team grew too big. Now AMD has better GPUs while intel struggles in that area. Yes, I almost forgot the resulting Bulldozer fiasco. I believe that was a result of applying GPU thinking to CPUs.

rincebrain 10y ago
And now Zen comes out of forming an entirely new round of people. The amount of money lost from that particular issue, if that was the cause, boggles the mind. (It's too bad that AMD didn't wind up on top so far in the GPGPU area - if they had, all that GPU influence being a problem probably would be much easier to write off.) Intel struggles in that area? AFAIK the only problem Intel struggles with, GPU-wise, is that they appear to loathe the idea of making discrete GPUs, so they're constantly trying to figure out how to make a fast GPU in an acceptable on-package area. I was under the impression that AMD's on-die GPUs, while (possibly? I haven't tested their on-die GPUs in a few generations) nicer than Intel's, were still not something to write home about.
- detaro 10y ago
  For a while I saw AMDs APUs recommended quite a bit for cheap HTPCs and light gaming machines.