The CPU Redefined: AMD Torrenze and Intel CSI 200
janp writes "In the near future the Central Processing Unit (CPU) will not be as central anymore. AMD has announced the Torrenza platform that revives the concept of co-processors. Intel is also taking steps in this direction with the announcement of the CSI. With these technologies in the future we can put special chips (GPU's, APU's, etc. etc.) directly on the motherboard in a special socket. Hardware.Info has published a clear introduction to AMD Torrenza and Intel CSI and sneak peaks into the future of processors."
huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Amiga? (Score:3, Insightful)
EOISNA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Great, so now instead of spending a couple of hundred to upgrade just my CPU or just my GPU, I'll need to spend four, five, six hundred to upgrade both at once, along with a "S[ound]PU", physics chip, etc?
Never happen. Corporations aren't going to want to have to spend hundreds of pounds more on machines with built-in high-end stuff they don't want or need. At home, I want loads of RAM, processing power and a strong GPU. At work, I absolutely do not require the GPU - anything that can do 1600x1200 @ 32bpp and 60Hz for 2D is perfectly adequate.
Likewise, the chip builders aren't going to want to have to release these all-in-one chips in a myriad of options, for low/medium/high spec CPU/GPU/PPU/SPU/$fooPU, it simply won't be cost-effective.
It's lose-lose imho; you're either stuck buying things you don't want, or have a mind-boggling number of options to choose from (consumers/business) and support (manufacturers/OEMs/IT depts).
Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The limits aren't such a big deal.
Quad-core processors are already rolling off the lines and user demand for them doesn't really exist.
They could easily throw together a 2xCPU/1xGPU/1xDSP configuration at similar complexity.
And the market would actually care about that chip.
Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Example: in my workplace, we have nice-ass Dells which do almost nothing and store all their data on a massive SAN. They're 2.6GHz beasts with a gig of ram, a 160G HD, and a SWEET ATI vid card each. Now, while I personally make use of it all proper-like, most people here could get along with a 1GHZ/512MRAM/16GHD/Onboard video system.
I think Intel/AMD stands to make a lot of money if they were to build an all-in-one-chip computer, ie: CPU, RAM, Video, Sound, Network, and a generous flash drive on a single chip.
Re: huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, no thank you. I've had enough problems ever since they started to integrate more and more peripherals on the motherboard. I'd be troubled if I'd have to choose between either a VMX-less, DDR3-capable chip with the GPU I wanted, a VMX- and DDR3-capable chip with a bad GPU, a VMX-capable but DDR2 chip with a good GPU, or a chip that has all three but an IO-APIC that isn't supported by Linux, or a chip that I could actually use but costs $500.
Instead of gaining those last 10% of performance, I'd prefer a modular architecture, thank you. Whatever is so terribly wrong with PCI-Express anyway?
AMIGA! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Haven't tried to run Vista yet
Really just two types of processors (Score:4, Insightful)
Definitely. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a damn shame that Commodore couldn't market/sell their way out of a wet paper bag.
Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason you might want the processor to be NOT insde the CPU is to keep some data off the CPU's bus. A floating point processor is an example of something you dop want inside the CPU but a RAID chip is best outside the CPU. You need to deside case by case.
Its the memory, stupid (Score:1, Insightful)