AMD: Now Ready To Fuse GPU and CPU Technologies

AMD: Now Ready To Fuse GPU and CPU Technologies

It's no huge secret that AMD hasn't been shattering sales records or blowing away Wall Street pundits of late. In fact, it's been years since Advanced Micro Devices had the kind of steam behind it that firms like MSI, Intel and Apple are enjoying right now. In a late-breaking report, the Sunnyvale-based company has just announced an all new operating model that centers the organization on four equally critical functions: products, technology, marketing and customers.

From an outsiders perspective, we can't help but be refreshed by this news. For far too long, AMD has simply sat in the background, content with playing second fiddle to the Intels, HPs and ARMs of the world. Regardless of what comes of this, it's just good to know that a new initiative is being approached within the company's walls. According to it, the new structure is designed to "better optimize AMD’s operations to drive industry-leading performance graphics and microprocessors and further integrate the company’s x86 processor and graphics technologies."

Dirk Meyer, AMD's president and CEO, had this to say about the changes: "We are tightening our focus on delivering the winning products and platforms our customers want based on AMD’s industry-leading microprocessor and graphics technologies. The next generation of innovation in the computing industry will be grounded in the fusion of microprocessor and graphics technologies. With these changes, we are putting the right organization in place to help enable the future of computing."

We won't try to read too far between the lines here, but this sounds like two things to us. First, it sounds like ATI is about to become a whole lot more AMD and a whole lot less ATI -- if you catch our drift. Secondly, it genuinely sounds like AMD is ready to play ball with Intel and NVIDIA in the race to revolutionize GPUs. NVIDIA has already proven with Ion that a change is underway, and it's only a matter of time before GPUs are handling the same amount, if not more work than a standard CPU. Look, AMD owns ATI -- why on Earth couldn't it compete in this space? It has years of GPU innovation under its own roof, and we're thrilled to see a little progress being made that'll take advantage of that.


In closing, AMD also announced (rather quietly, might we add) that Randy Allen, senior vice president, Computing Solutions Group, has decided to leave the company. Only AMD knows whether it was forced or voluntary.
+ -

I can't wait to see what kind of performance these things can produce.

+ -

Its bound to happen, now the only thing well need is more space for ram on the mobo

+ -

I'm hoping the end-result is something scalable, and not a niche product for handheld devices and netbooks.

+ -

it'll probably co-exist with integrated graphics, until it eventually replaces them? I'm mostly curious if the performance of these will come in above or below the current IGPs that are out there. If it falls below... I can see this allowing for some really low priced PCs.

But it'll be interesting to see what they can do if the memory controller is still integrated into the CPU. This is assuming they put it in a PC and not a MID, or Cell phone, or anything like that :-P

They hint at cell phones with the mention of ARM and HP. I'm hoping it's not just a chip for handhelds...

+ -

     I don't think a company, wait a new company road map that is, will concentrate on a single cpu or cpu/gpu device. I will tell you what I think they need to do! I think with the current technologies available and for an integrated setup they should expand what they have, and then expand what is available. Such as this; if they integrated a cpu/gpu in one body, and then a chipset with an onboard gpu and made them crossfire by default it would be a nice step.

     We have to realize hard ware junkies like many of us are not the market's focus. The general user is! I would also say one thing the companies need to add is a NAND solution onboard to. This does not need to be signifigant, lets say 10 gigs onboard storage. This would house the operating system and all default running apps. This would equal very signifigant performance to a general user and to one of us as well.

     We could throw in 1 or 2 GPU's on top of it and run 3 or 4 way crossfire. I would suggest 3 on something like this, as it has been shown that the performance return on 4 is not signifigant.

     Then they need to work on catching up with intel on the nano size and performance levels of there cpu's. They are now decent, but decent never won any game on the performance side. 

     I like quite a few of you would love to use AMD on my next build; but with the performance return available, I just don't see an advantage for 1-300 dollars that justifies it.

     However, if they caught the general market like they used to have it, they would have a lot more money as well as time to add to there current development. This would in the end bring much better technology than is currently available, which would also press INTEl as well, earning in the end better, faster technology growth than is happening now. That would truly be the ultimate.

     I would also say that much like it is currently the speed and availability on new technologies even today makes no sense on a business level to me. There is so much available and all of it dwarfs what was available 3 years ago to the extent that it is amazing. Then they (AMD and INTEL) will be releasing multiple new platforms before next christmas.

     So; unless you have a future seeing genie as a CEO, where do you go in a business perspective? INTEl is basically canibalizing thierselves for at least 15-25% right now, wait until I5 drops in September! If you look at a PC online or at a store what do you choose from that ( a core2, core2 quad, centrino 2 core 2/quad, I7, I5)? A normal consumer has absolutely no clue what there getting based on anything but price. So what does your company aim for technologically, more confusion!

     I also think someone needs to stick a hot coal up the software end of the markets butt; as there lacadasical developement on current softwares usage of the available technological muscle, is sincerely not even in any sense (yes even Crisis), taxing to the current middle/top of the line (I7 or Phenom2 quad and 2 GPUS, with 4-6 gigs of ram). On top of that things are strongly moving to 64 bit for what reason? What software uses 6.4 gigs of ram, and wastes half of it, except generally  specialized professional or scientific software. I applaud 64 bit but when 5% if that of the markets software can even use multi processing to its capabilities why?

Login or Register to Comment
Post a Comment
Username:   Password: