3 ms·

>And seperate CPUs+dGPUs are what users want on PCs. Intel and AMD tried to sell GPU heavy designs (eDRAM Broadwell, Vega M, Van Gogh (the Steam Deck SoC)) and

>And seperate CPUs+dGPUs are what users want on PCs. Intel and AMD tried to sell GPU heavy designs (eDRAM Broadwell, Vega M, Van Gogh (the Steam Deck SoC)) and PC OEMs unequivocally rejected them. That's because the perceived or real performance of integrated GPUs is crap compared to discrete GPUs, especially when the latter was much cheaper several years ago. These days though, discrete GPUs have gotten very expensive off the heels of cryptomining and now "AI", and there are signs integrated GPUs might see significant improvements in performance. If integrated GPUs can provide sufficient performance for the prices demanded, PC users will switch. They couldn't care less if their GPU is integrated or discrete, they care whether they can run Fortnite at 500 frames per second.

Panzer04 3y ago
I think it will always be hard to justify. The amount of different configurations proliferate very quickly, so you end up spending a lot of die area etc on parts that much of the market doesn't need. Intel and AMD seem to have settled on sticking a relatively small (but still significant die-wise) GPU, sufficient for 95% of consumers. They can't justify spending the die area needed for a large, powerful GPU that a relatively small segment of the market wants (and even then there's 2-3 cores from low end to high end, just for the GPU) To achieve the same market for today you're looking at 2x CPU dies and 3x GPU dies, or at least 6 different combinations of CPU and GPU, and you still have loads of people who don't want the GPU at all. It just doesn't make sense to fully integrate them unless die area is so cheap that power consumption is the main limiting factor (the big justification for lots of fixed function hardware - but that's all way smaller than a GPU
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >Intel and AMD seem to have settled on sticking a relatively small (but still significant die-wise) GPU Intel yes, but AMD only finally began integrating a GPU into most of their CPU line up with the latest Zen 4 generation. >a large, powerful [integrated] GPU that a relatively small segment of the market wants I think you're underselling the demand there, particularly if the M* line of CPUs with iGPUs from Apple are anything to go by. Like I said before, people want powerful graphics processing at an affordable (FSVO affordable with regards to Apple) price. >and you still have loads of people who don't want the GPU at all. Intel's been doing iGPUs for well over a decade now because "loads of people" do want iGPUs. Enthusiasts and professionals alike want them because they are a Lowest Common Denominator fallback for when shit hits the fan. People on a budget (whether monetary or electric) want them regardless of their poor performance because they need a display output, especially in recent years. And even if you have a discrete GPU anyway, an integrated GPU is still useful to have for offloading certain tasks. >It just doesn't make sense to fully integrate them unless die area is so cheap that power consumption is the main limiting factor Five years ago I would have completely agreed with you, but with how bloody expensive discrete GPUs are now I feel there's a vacated market segment where integrated GPUs with sufficient performance and reasonable pricing can come in to conquer and dominate; not unlike how discrete sound cards became extinct when integrated sound cards became Good Enough(tm).
- mjan22640 3y ago
  Whats the disadvantage in running regular applications and processes on GPU instead of CPU?
  - nine_k 3y ago
    Impossibility to do so, due to dire architectural differences. It's like asking why you can't wash dishes in a washing machine intended for clothes.
  - tacker2000 3y ago
    They are different beasts for different tasks. Basically, GPUs are optimized for calculating small stuff in parallel (polygons). CPUs calculate big stuff serially, until the advent of multi-core obviously, but GPUs have much more parallel pipelines.
smoldesu 3y ago
> and there are signs integrated GPUs might see significant improvements in performance. What exactly are you referring to here?
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Intel is looking to integrate their ARC GPUs into their CPUs from 14th gen Meteor Lake onwards. If those are anywhere near as powerful as their discrete counterparts, things could become interesting.
  - imtringued 3y ago
    Why? The problem with iGPUs has nothing to do with die sharing. Consoles are based on AMD's APUs and they are competitive with discrete GPUs because the main memory is GDDR RAM.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      Kind of, unless you missed all the FPS drama versus PC gaming.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's basically what AMD did with their Vega lineup. I quite like AMD's mobile GPU lineup, but their desktop Vega cards got trashed by the AMD's last-gen cards and wasn't even visible from the Nvidia benchmark at the time. Those cards were discontinued faster than a bat outta hell. Intel has also done a fairly good job pushing their mobile GPUs forward, but their most powerful card is currently comparable to last-gen mobile GPUs from Nvidia. Unless Intel intends to be a TSMC customer, I'd be surprised if they could outperform AMD's attempt at that.
MonaroVXR 3y ago
The GPU in my 5700u is enough to run Valorant on high.
grogenaut 3y ago
For me it's more that it decouples the upgrade cycle a ton and lets me amoritize keeping my PC up to date over the years. My current PC setup is worth like $8-11k depending on how you price it. But there are some parts in there still (Drives) from 2008. I'd probbably still have monitors from 2012 but there was a hella sale in 2019 which let me upgrade them. My 2nd gpu to drive 4 of my 5 monitors is still a 2080ti from 2017/2018ish.

Panzer04 3y ago

I think it will always be hard to justify. The amount of different configurations proliferate very quickly, so you end up spending a lot of die area etc on parts that much of the market doesn't need. Intel and AMD seem to have settled on sticking a relatively small (but still significant die-wise) GPU, sufficient for 95% of consumers. They can't justify spending the die area needed for a large, powerful GPU that a relatively small segment of the market wants (and even then there's 2-3 cores from low end to high end, just for the GPU) To achieve the same market for today you're looking at 2x CPU dies and 3x GPU dies, or at least 6 different combinations of CPU and GPU, and you still have loads of people who don't want the GPU at all. It just doesn't make sense to fully integrate them unless die area is so cheap that power consumption is the main limiting factor (the big justification for lots of fixed function hardware - but that's all way smaller than a GPU

Dalewyn 3y ago
>Intel and AMD seem to have settled on sticking a relatively small (but still significant die-wise) GPU Intel yes, but AMD only finally began integrating a GPU into most of their CPU line up with the latest Zen 4 generation. >a large, powerful [integrated] GPU that a relatively small segment of the market wants I think you're underselling the demand there, particularly if the M* line of CPUs with iGPUs from Apple are anything to go by. Like I said before, people want powerful graphics processing at an affordable (FSVO affordable with regards to Apple) price. >and you still have loads of people who don't want the GPU at all. Intel's been doing iGPUs for well over a decade now because "loads of people" do want iGPUs. Enthusiasts and professionals alike want them because they are a Lowest Common Denominator fallback for when shit hits the fan. People on a budget (whether monetary or electric) want them regardless of their poor performance because they need a display output, especially in recent years. And even if you have a discrete GPU anyway, an integrated GPU is still useful to have for offloading certain tasks. >It just doesn't make sense to fully integrate them unless die area is so cheap that power consumption is the main limiting factor Five years ago I would have completely agreed with you, but with how bloody expensive discrete GPUs are now I feel there's a vacated market segment where integrated GPUs with sufficient performance and reasonable pricing can come in to conquer and dominate; not unlike how discrete sound cards became extinct when integrated sound cards became Good Enough(tm).
mjan22640 3y ago
Whats the disadvantage in running regular applications and processes on GPU instead of CPU?
- nine_k 3y ago
  Impossibility to do so, due to dire architectural differences. It's like asking why you can't wash dishes in a washing machine intended for clothes.
- tacker2000 3y ago
  They are different beasts for different tasks. Basically, GPUs are optimized for calculating small stuff in parallel (polygons). CPUs calculate big stuff serially, until the advent of multi-core obviously, but GPUs have much more parallel pipelines.

smoldesu 3y ago

> and there are signs integrated GPUs might see significant improvements in performance. What exactly are you referring to here?

Dalewyn 3y ago
Intel is looking to integrate their ARC GPUs into their CPUs from 14th gen Meteor Lake onwards. If those are anywhere near as powerful as their discrete counterparts, things could become interesting.
- imtringued 3y ago
  Why? The problem with iGPUs has nothing to do with die sharing. Consoles are based on AMD's APUs and they are competitive with discrete GPUs because the main memory is GDDR RAM.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Kind of, unless you missed all the FPS drama versus PC gaming.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's basically what AMD did with their Vega lineup. I quite like AMD's mobile GPU lineup, but their desktop Vega cards got trashed by the AMD's last-gen cards and wasn't even visible from the Nvidia benchmark at the time. Those cards were discontinued faster than a bat outta hell. Intel has also done a fairly good job pushing their mobile GPUs forward, but their most powerful card is currently comparable to last-gen mobile GPUs from Nvidia. Unless Intel intends to be a TSMC customer, I'd be surprised if they could outperform AMD's attempt at that.

MonaroVXR 3y ago

The GPU in my 5700u is enough to run Valorant on high.

grogenaut 3y ago

For me it's more that it decouples the upgrade cycle a ton and lets me amoritize keeping my PC up to date over the years. My current PC setup is worth like $8-11k depending on how you price it. But there are some parts in there still (Drives) from 2008. I'd probbably still have monitors from 2012 but there was a hella sale in 2019 which let me upgrade them. My 2nd gpu to drive 4 of my 5 monitors is still a 2080ti from 2017/2018ish.