3 ms·
This seems doubly bizarre, in that high-end Intel processors already tend to have integrated graphics hardware, yet high-end AMD processors don't. For instance
by joosters 9y ago
This seems doubly bizarre, in that high-end Intel processors already tend to have integrated graphics hardware, yet high-end AMD processors don't.
For instance, I built a new computer using an AMD Ryzen processor recently (solely for its CPU speed). I hadn't realised that the CPU had no graphics hardware at all, and that I would need a separate graphics card in order to get any output on a monitor. Whereas previous computer builds using i7 CPUs need no extra hardware.
- Synaesthesia 9y agoActually AMD probably make the best integrated graphics, not on their Ryzen CPU, but on many others. Including all the major consoles.
- opencl 9y agoIt seems to largely be a cost issue, since AMD does not exactly have huge amounts of cash to pour into lots of different chips designs for specific purposes like Intel. AMD wanted to release 8 core parts that competed on price with Intel's 4 core parts. Roughly half the die area (and thus manufacturing cost) of Intel's quad core desktop CPUs is the GPU, so by cutting the GPU they were able to make 8 cores at similar cost to Intel's 4 cores + GPU. It also allowed them to reuse the same chip for desktop, workstation, and server parts dramatically reducing R&D costs for the whole lineup. And really "high end" Intel processors, as in everything with 8 cores or more, also lack the GPU anyway. The Raven Ridge CPUs are 4 cores + GPU (with much faster GPU than anything Intel has). I imagine they'll do a higher core count part with GPU once Globalfoundries starts making 7nm chips.