"geoff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> A local computer chain in my area has dropped AMD motherboards. When
> I asked them today about it, they said AMD is exiting the desktop/x86
> market this year. I found this but have not seen anything about AMD
> pursuing tablets only:
>
> http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2...p_roadmap_for_
2
> 012_2013.html
>
> . . . I also found this:
>
> http://www.techpowerup.com/155920/AM...ng-With-Intel-
O
> n-x86-CPU-Prices-Already-Shooting-Up.html?cp=2
>
> . . . so maybe it is true.
>
> --g
>
>

Uhhhh...respectfully stated, you have simply misinterpreted two
different articles. It's true that AMD is not planning to directly
compete with Intel in the desktop market. But depending on how this
strategy works out, that could be good OR BAD for Intel.

The CPU, as most currently know it, is a dinosaur, destined to quickly
become extinct. This will affect both AMD and Intel. AMD knew that a
long time ago, which is exactly why AMD bought ATI.

GPUs (or video cards or video chips, if you will) have such massively
raw processing power that a dedicated CPU is (and has been for a long
time) redundant. Many years ago, the most forward-thinking hardware
experts were able to see that (eventually) the CPU would cease to exist.
We are right at that tipping point NOW.

Probably within 10 years at most, you won't be able to buy a newly
manufactured CPU at any price. Not from Intel or AMD or any other
company. You WILL be able to buy new GPUs, most likely from AMD and
maybe Intel as well (if Intel gets their **** straight quick). These
GPUs will function as CPUs, but the CPU bit will be a MINOR function of
the chip. The predecessor of these new GPU chips is already widely
available at the usual hardware vendors. AMD calls this thing an "APU".
(google A8-3870, for one example) For the moment, there is still a CPU
of sorts on the APU chip. But that won't be there much longer.

Looking forward, the desktop processor company to survive will be the
company that produces the best video chips (GPUs) "in house". Read that
last sentence again, and keep in mind that Intel video chips have always
sucked, and will probably always suck in the future, also...

AMD was right to buy ATI. ATI and Nvidia are (to over-simplify a bit)
the future of the desktop microprocessor business. Where does that
leave Intel? Unknown at this point. But AMD stating that they aren't
competing with Intel is sigificant. And I'd interpret that statement as
EXTREMELY BAD NEWS FOR INTEL.

Quite frankly, unless Intel gets in bed with Nvidia somehow, AMD is more
likely to end up with a "monopoly" than Intel is...

You might think this whole argument is full of ****, until you wrap your
head around the simple concept that CPUs are almost extinct, to be
replaced with GPUs. If you can't GET that point, then it is easy to
falsely jump to the erroneous conclusion that AMD not competing directly
with Intel is somehow bad for AMD... (quite the opposite...AMD isn't
planning to compete with Intel as Intel seems to be about to take
themselves off the playing field entirely...)

As for the SECOND article, about the desktop CPU roadmap...

Again, you misread it. AMD is cancelling plans for a certain "core" of
desktop application APU in favor of pushing two other "cores" of desktop
application APUs. "APUs" being the replacement for CPUs, as the term
CPU is widely used.

That AMD roadmap seems to indicate AMD is committed to vigorously
competing in the APU market for this year and next year, at least. For
desktops and notebooks, to be clear.

Meanwhile, one has to wonder...where is Intel in the APU market? Core
I3 with "intel hd" graphics? Core I5 with even faster "intel hd"
graphics? What a joke, to put it bluntly. Intel is going to have to
release some kind of serious APU soon, possibly with the help of nvidia.
Compete, or die. That is my advice to Intel. AMD is certainly still
in the game. I don't know if I can say the same for Intel.

Dave C. wrote:
> "geoff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> A local computer chain in my area has dropped AMD motherboards. When
>> I asked them today about it, they said AMD is exiting the desktop/x86
>> market this year. I found this but have not seen anything about AMD
>> pursuing tablets only:
>>
>> http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2...p_roadmap_for_
> 2
>> 012_2013.html
>>
>> . . . I also found this:
>>
>> http://www.techpowerup.com/155920/AM...ng-With-Intel-
> O
>> n-x86-CPU-Prices-Already-Shooting-Up.html?cp=2
>>
>> . . . so maybe it is true.
>>
>> --g
>>
>>
>
> Uhhhh...respectfully stated, you have simply misinterpreted two
> different articles. It's true that AMD is not planning to directly
> compete with Intel in the desktop market. But depending on how this
> strategy works out, that could be good OR BAD for Intel.
>
> The CPU, as most currently know it, is a dinosaur, destined to quickly
> become extinct. This will affect both AMD and Intel. AMD knew that a
> long time ago, which is exactly why AMD bought ATI.
>

I think you're referring to "x86 compatibility" here, rather than CPU
as a concept in general.

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...ersus-x86.aspx

If anything, the market is becoming more fragmented, with more
opportunities. And it's the ability of the larger companies
to deal with it, that's being tested. It isn't so much a
technology issue. All the companies have some experience with SOC,
with building complex systems, and also with experimenting with
new ideas.

Where you can't count out companies like Intel, Apple, or Microsoft,
is piles of cash-on-hand. They can afford to make mistakes.
AMD on the other hand, is stretched pretty thin.
That's a big issue for them. Surviving until next week.

Paul

>> The CPU, as most currently know it, is a dinosaur, destined to
>> quickly become extinct. This will affect both AMD and Intel. AMD
>> knew that a long time ago, which is exactly why AMD bought ATI.
>>
>
> I think you're referring to "x86 compatibility" here, rather than CPU
> as a concept in general.
>


No, I'm referring to the CPU as a concept in general. I know it's hard to
swallow if you're just hearing this recently, for the first time. But the
CPU is really not needed (at all) in a computer system. The best example
to illustrate my point (that I've heard of recently) is the supercomputer
that the U.S. Air Force created out of a bunch of console games:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/art...ir-forces-new-
supercomputer-made-1760-playstation-3s
They slightly modified 1760 GPUs to function as extremely powerful CPUs.
Then they had to add GPUs to the mix, as the original GPUs were doing CPU
stuff, ha ha. This isn't the only time it's been done, either. Many other
people have hacked GPUs of console games to make extremely powerful CPUs.
If a bunch of Air Force hacks and linux nerds can make a supercomputer out
of GPU chips...imagine what the engineers at AMD could do? Now keep in
mind that THEY ARE ALREADY DOING IT.
To simplify a bit...a GPU is an incredibly powerful CPU that usually does
not process information the same way that a CPU does. But it CAN. It's
just a matter of coding. Instruct the GPU to act as a CPU also...and then
what do you use the CPU for?
The CPU as we know it is DONE!




> http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...-war-arm-versu
> s-x86.aspx
>
> If anything, the market is becoming more fragmented, with more
> opportunities. And it's the ability of the larger companies
> to deal with it, that's being tested. It isn't so much a
> technology issue. All the companies have some experience with SOC,
> with building complex systems, and also with experimenting with
> new ideas.
>
> Where you can't count out companies like Intel, Apple, or Microsoft,
> is piles of cash-on-hand. They can afford to make mistakes.
> AMD on the other hand, is stretched pretty thin.
> That's a big issue for them. Surviving until next week.
>
> Paul

You could be right about the cash-on-hand being a big problem for AMD. But
AMD has a much better long-term survival strategy than Intel appears to
have. Unless Intel is being super-secretive about a strong new video chip
that they've been developing for years...
Intel is going to get left behind soon, when the technology that Intel
specializes in is no longer in demand.

Back in the day, we could say that RCA made a heckuva good record player.
Does it matter today? Not really.

In the same sense, we will look back decades from now and say that...
Back in the day, Intel made a heckuva good CPU. And it doesn't matter
anymore. Our grandchildren will be asking, "What is a CPU?" Just like
children today sometimes ask "What is a record?"

I personally can't imagine any scenario that would lead to AMD not making
chips for desktop computers anymore. If all it takes is money to shore
them up, someone will front the money in return for a share of the profits.
AMD is far more focused on the future of PC technology than Intel appears
to be. AMD only appears to be in trouble (currently) as their development
is looking so far forward, maybe too far forward. In planning for the
future, they have almost sacrificed the PRESENT. Can they get over the
hurdle? If they do, AMD's future is very bright, indeed. I can't say the
same for Intel...I'm afraid it will take more than lots of cash-on-hand to
save Intel, as they appear to be planning NOT to compete anymore...

As the saying goes, failing to plan is planning to fail. If Intel is
getting ready to compete in the APU market, they sure are being secretive
about it! Intel makes great CPUs, no argument there. Too bad the CPU is
going the way of the 8-track tape player. AMD is gearing up to produce the
next round of APUs which will power future desktop computer systems. Where
is Intel in the future? Right now, I don't even see Intel in the future,
at all...

Dave C. wrote:
>>> The CPU, as most currently know it, is a dinosaur, destined to
>>> quickly become extinct. This will affect both AMD and Intel. AMD
>>> knew that a long time ago, which is exactly why AMD bought ATI.
>>>
>> I think you're referring to "x86 compatibility" here, rather than CPU
>> as a concept in general.
>>
>
>
> No, I'm referring to the CPU as a concept in general. I know it's hard to
> swallow if you're just hearing this recently, for the first time. But the
> CPU is really not needed (at all) in a computer system. The best example
> to illustrate my point (that I've heard of recently) is the supercomputer
> that the U.S. Air Force created out of a bunch of console games:
> http://www.popsci.com/technology/art...ir-forces-new-
> supercomputer-made-1760-playstation-3s
> They slightly modified 1760 GPUs to function as extremely powerful CPUs.
> Then they had to add GPUs to the mix, as the original GPUs were doing CPU
> stuff, ha ha. This isn't the only time it's been done, either. Many other
> people have hacked GPUs of console games to make extremely powerful CPUs.
> If a bunch of Air Force hacks and linux nerds can make a supercomputer out
> of GPU chips...imagine what the engineers at AMD could do? Now keep in
> mind that THEY ARE ALREADY DOING IT.
> To simplify a bit...a GPU is an incredibly powerful CPU that usually does
> not process information the same way that a CPU does. But it CAN. It's
> just a matter of coding. Instruct the GPU to act as a CPU also...and then
> what do you use the CPU for?
> The CPU as we know it is DONE!
>
>
>
>
>> http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...-war-arm-versu
>> s-x86.aspx
>>
>> If anything, the market is becoming more fragmented, with more
>> opportunities. And it's the ability of the larger companies
>> to deal with it, that's being tested. It isn't so much a
>> technology issue. All the companies have some experience with SOC,
>> with building complex systems, and also with experimenting with
>> new ideas.
>>
>> Where you can't count out companies like Intel, Apple, or Microsoft,
>> is piles of cash-on-hand. They can afford to make mistakes.
>> AMD on the other hand, is stretched pretty thin.
>> That's a big issue for them. Surviving until next week.
>>
>> Paul
>
> You could be right about the cash-on-hand being a big problem for AMD. But
> AMD has a much better long-term survival strategy than Intel appears to
> have. Unless Intel is being super-secretive about a strong new video chip
> that they've been developing for years...
> Intel is going to get left behind soon, when the technology that Intel
> specializes in is no longer in demand.
>
> Back in the day, we could say that RCA made a heckuva good record player.
> Does it matter today? Not really.
>
> In the same sense, we will look back decades from now and say that...
> Back in the day, Intel made a heckuva good CPU. And it doesn't matter
> anymore. Our grandchildren will be asking, "What is a CPU?" Just like
> children today sometimes ask "What is a record?"
>
> I personally can't imagine any scenario that would lead to AMD not making
> chips for desktop computers anymore. If all it takes is money to shore
> them up, someone will front the money in return for a share of the profits.
> AMD is far more focused on the future of PC technology than Intel appears
> to be. AMD only appears to be in trouble (currently) as their development
> is looking so far forward, maybe too far forward. In planning for the
> future, they have almost sacrificed the PRESENT. Can they get over the
> hurdle? If they do, AMD's future is very bright, indeed. I can't say the
> same for Intel...I'm afraid it will take more than lots of cash-on-hand to
> save Intel, as they appear to be planning NOT to compete anymore...
>
> As the saying goes, failing to plan is planning to fail. If Intel is
> getting ready to compete in the APU market, they sure are being secretive
> about it! Intel makes great CPUs, no argument there. Too bad the CPU is
> going the way of the 8-track tape player. AMD is gearing up to produce the
> next round of APUs which will power future desktop computer systems. Where
> is Intel in the future? Right now, I don't even see Intel in the future,
> at all...

I think the best place for feedback on your idea, would be something like comp.arch.

Paul

>> As the saying goes, failing to plan is planning to fail. If Intel is
>> getting ready to compete in the APU market, they sure are being
>> secretive about it! Intel makes great CPUs, no argument there. Too
>> bad the CPU is going the way of the 8-track tape player. AMD is
>> gearing up to produce the next round of APUs which will power future
>> desktop computer systems. Where is Intel in the future? Right now,
>> I don't even see Intel in the future, at all...
>
> I think the best place for feedback on your idea, would be something
> like comp.arch.
>
> Paul
>

What idea are you referring to, Paul? I haven't had any ideas about
computer architecture. I am simply commenting on current hardware
trends. In case you haven't noticed, the CPU (as we currently use the
term) is almost extinct. That's not my idea. It is something I myself
read about many years ago. Since then, I have watched it happening, and
commented on it. But it wasn't ever my idea.

Within 10 or 20 years (at most) we will be building single-chip desktop
computers. The single chip will be video card, CPU, RAM and possibly
storage as well (SSD) all integrated into one chip. I've seen this
coming for many years. The only thing I was confused on is what the
single chip would be called. AMD cleared that up when they started
shipping their "APU" chips to retail channels.

So there ya have it. CPUs are out, APUs are in. Not my idea. But it
it's not future tech or vaporware, either. It's starting to happen RIGHT
NOW.

In article <Xns9FFF5FB36DFBBnowaynohownot@195.67.212.194>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> To simplify a bit...a GPU is an incredibly powerful CPU that usually does
> not process information the same way that a CPU does. But it CAN. It's
> just a matter of coding. Instruct the GPU to act as a CPU also...and then
> what do you use the CPU for?
>
>

This bit needs explaining. If, as you say, they can make GPUs that are,
in essence, just extremely powerful CPUs (basically the same
technology), then why are they not also just making extremely powerful
CPUs using the same technology, now?

It would be like a car manufacturer who managed to come up with an
engine that was twice as powerful, without being any bigger or using any
more fuel, but they held back because in 5 years time they new they
could improve the fuel economy by 50%.

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, Dave C. wrote:

>
>> The CPU, as most currently know it, is a dinosaur, destined to
>>> quickly become extinct. This will affect both AMD and Intel. AMD
>>> knew that a long time ago, which is exactly why AMD bought ATI.
>>>
>>
>> I think you're referring to "x86 compatibility" here, rather than CPU
>> as a concept in general.
>>
>
>
> No, I'm referring to the CPU as a concept in general. I know it's hard to
> swallow if you're just hearing this recently, for the first time. But the
> CPU is really not needed (at all) in a computer system. The best example
> to illustrate my point (that I've heard of recently) is the supercomputer
> that the U.S. Air Force created out of a bunch of console games:
> http://www.popsci.com/technology/art...ir-forces-new-
> supercomputer-made-1760-playstation-3s

I think you're misinterpreting things.

A graphic processor is a CPU that's sculpted to deal with graphics. In
the old days, there were CRT controllers, but while they streamlined
things like scrolling text up the screen, they required the CPU to do much
of the work. Then as things got more graphic, in effect a second CPU was
added to offload the load on the primary CPU, so it can do what it's
supposed to do, letting the secondary CPU handle the graphics. Actually,
a second CPU likely was added initially, then there were CPUs intended to
handle graphics specifically, and thus the GPU came along.

Yes, these GPUs have become better and better, for all those gamers, but
in essence they are still built for graphics processing.

For them to be "general purpose CPUs" they instruction set would have to
be different, which means they would not be as good for graphics. And if
you go back to one processor, then it slows things down.

Now, I can see graphics being included in CPUs, the way memory management
and math coprocessors have been added, but it wouldn't be about changing
the CPU, but adding the graphic processor to the chip that the CPU is on.

NObody wants to go back to the days of the CPU handling all the graphics,
since that will slow things down now that graphics are so intense on too
many computers.

Michael

Michael Black wrote:

> NObody wants to go back to the days of the CPU handling all the
> graphics, since that will slow things down now that graphics are so
> intense on too many computers.
>
> Michael

Intel experimented with that idea, in Larrabee chip. While that
chip was not released to the market, I'll bet it is still alive
and kicking inside an Intel lab somewhere. Mainly for applications
in servers or scientific computing. It probably won't come back
as a graphics chip or an APU look-alike or anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrabe...roarchitecture)

Larrabee was to use the x86 instruction set with Larrabee-specific extensions.

Larrabee was to feature cache coherency across all its cores.

Larrabee was to include very little specialized graphics hardware,
instead performing tasks like z-buffering, clipping, and blending
in software, using a tile-based rendering approach.

The GPU wouldn't have cache coherency between cores (that would absolutely
kill performance), while the Larrabee does, which makes it more suited to
general computing. The GPU also has poor memory bandwidth, for ordinary
computing tasks (a forum participant here, measured it for himself). Under
the right conditions, and with the right test code, the aggregate memory
performance can be made to hit the state datasheet bandwidth (however many
GB/sec that happens to be). But, just like on a CPU, if you write a
single thread of code for a GPU, and make the code do random accesses,
performance sucks big time. It sucks worse than a CPU. That's because memory
design, hasn't kept up with the improvements in CPU design.

This is a partial block diagram of the Larrabee. Compared to a
regular Intel CPU, the processor features in-order execution, which
isn't as good as the out of order execution of current processors. That
was done to reduce the size of the core, so more could be fitted for
parallelism reasons.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...re_bloack).PNG

And this, apparently, is a wafer full of Larrabees.

http://news.mydrivers.com/Img/20091104/S11204977.jpg

I think the idea is, they can put more than one block into a chip.
I doubt it's tiled exactly like the Wikipedia picture, so it's
hard to say if this represents two "blocks" or not, or whether
they put all the cores onto a single internal bus.

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/10-05-31/110c.jpg

Paul

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 00:33:02 +0000 (UTC), "Dave C." <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>To simplify a bit...a GPU is an incredibly powerful CPU that usually does
>not process information the same way that a CPU does. But it CAN. It's
>just a matter of coding. Instruct the GPU to act as a CPU also...and then
>what do you use the CPU for?
>The CPU as we know it is DONE!

The basic problem is that with the GPU they got that performance by
extreme parallelism and by ditching compatibility. Neither translates
too well into a chip to run your main machine.

On Feb 20, 2:22*pm, "Dave C." <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
> >> As the saying goes, failing to plan is planning to fail. *If Intel is
> >> getting ready to compete in the APU market, they sure are being
> >> secretive about it! *Intel makes great CPUs, no argument there. *Too
> >> bad the CPU is going the way of the 8-track tape player. *AMD is
> >> gearing up to produce the next round of APUs which will power future
> >> desktop computer systems. *Where is Intel in the future? *Right now,
> >> I don't even see Intel in the future, at all...
>
> > I think the best place for feedback on your idea, would be something
> > like comp.arch.
>
> > * * Paul
>
> What idea are you referring to, Paul? *I haven't had any ideas about
> computer architecture. *I am simply commenting on current hardware
> trends. *In case you haven't noticed, the CPU (as we currently use the
> term) is almost extinct. *That's not my idea. *It is something I myself
> read about many years ago. *Since then, I have watched it happening, and
> commented on it. *But it wasn't ever my idea.
>
> Within 10 or 20 years (at most) we will be building single-chip desktop
> computers. *The single chip will be video card, CPU, RAM and possibly
> storage as well (SSD) all integrated into one chip. *I've seen this
> coming for many years. *The only thing I was confused on is what the
> single chip would be called. *AMD cleared that up when they started
> shipping their "APU" chips to retail channels.
>
> So there ya have it. *CPUs are out, APUs are in. *Not my idea. *Butit
> it's not future tech or vaporware, either. *It's starting to happen RIGHT
> NOW.


I was working as pc tech during 90's... I can't believe when you said
that CPU market could be extinct but... it is not way out of line
opinion. Somewhat it makes sense consider the PC market is driven by
the graphic driven gaming. I guess that's why GPU market has more
clear road than CPU market.