4 ms·
I don't see why on-chip graphics support is necessary. An off-chip, independent graphics chip would surely suffice as redrawing the screen is loosely coupled wi
by tempguy9999 7y ago
I don't see why on-chip graphics support is necessary. An off-chip, independent graphics chip would surely suffice as redrawing the screen is loosely coupled with computation (describe screen, send to GPU, 60 times a second).
Other than some extra power draw needed to couple the 2 chips together, which I assume is minimal, splitting computation from rendering seems like a very good idea - where am I wrong? Would the extra monetary cost be significant - if so roughly by how much?
- djsumdog 7y agoI recently build this AMD based development rig with an ITX board and the cheapest GPU I could find: https://penguindreams.org/blog/louqe-ghost-s1-build-and-review/ https://penguindreams.org/blog/louqe-ghost-s1-build-and-revi... I would have much rather left the GPU out entirely and used the space for something else, but the high end Ryzens don't have any graphics supports. I'd have to go down to the APU units, where I'd trade off power. There's little point to even having HDMI/DisplayPort outs on the board itself; they're unusable except for a small subset of APUs.
- wmf 7y ago13" or smaller laptops don't really have room for a discrete GPU (I supposed they could fit one by shrinking the battery, but why would you do that) and IGPs are generally "free" compared to ~$50 for a cheap discrete GPU. Logically the GPU is a separate unit whether it's on the same chip as the CPU or a separate chip.