AM3 Reference Diagram Disclosed 65
psyph3r writes "Chilehardware has released what appears to be a confidential image showing the future customer desktop AM3 reference boards for AMD and ATI. Here is an English site talking about this reference design image and the features it enables. 'The biggest improvement for this generation of chipsets is the audio and video capabilities integrated into the motherboard. The new features packed into these chipsets are beginning to look like standalone platforms. The RS780 supports DirectX 10 and has a UVD, which is similar to most High-end cards of today.'"
In other words, integrated (Score:5, Insightful)
Supporting DirectX 10 and all that is great and all, but, how fast will it be? I remember getting an nForce 4 integrated video board for my folks some time ago and it supported the latest DirectX versions and, while it ran all the nVidia eyecandy demos, it sure was slow.
I mean, TFA makes reference to Hypertransport 3.0 and all, but memory bandwidth is only part of pretty pixels.
Wasn't this "Confidential"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other words, integrated (Score:4, Insightful)
In the case of Intel, it's the memory bandwidth coupled with a distinct lack of Vertex Shader support.
In the case of AMD, it's the memory bandwidth coupled with a dramatically reduced/nonexistent support for Vertex Shaders.
In the case of NVidia, it's the memory bandwidth.
In the case with many IGPs, the combination of having to share RAM with the machine on it's own bus, along with no Transform, Clipping, and Lighting hardware acceleration (Little to no Vertex Shader hardware...) means for a very slow GPU overall. Now, having said this, the Hypertransport 3.0 interface may help on the bus speed, and if you're looking at the Unified Shader requirements for DX10, you might find that this may be a little better performer. It's not going to be like a PCI-E add-in card, but it may be serviceable for light to medium duty 3D stuff by itself because of those two things.
Re:Wasn't this "Confidential"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In other words, integrated (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wasn't this "Confidential"? (Score:4, Insightful)
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/02/12/2114228.shtml [slashdot.org]
answer your question?
(Slashdot's most visited story of all time, btw)
Re:In other words, integrated (Score:2, Insightful)
However, there has been a general trend in computing power in the last few years where people aren't upgrading that often. Some attribute it to computers being fast enough to run just about everything. Personally I think it's because we've been with Windows XP for so long, which is an argument for a another time. However, regardless of the reasons why people aren't upgrading that often, game developers are realizing that a lot of their money is coming from people still running DirectX 8 video cards and they had better make their games at least playable to them. Another reason is that the costs of producing a game are soaring, and developers also realize they cannot entirely rely on the hardware-upgraders for sales like they could in ye olden days of 10 years ago. So they let the market grow by allowing people with non-top-of-the-line computers to run their games. It's not a large expansion, but it is a growth nonetheless.
Nevertheless, people willing to put out "insane" amount of money for a good mobo and GPU, are not typically going to be the kind of people that would pay that same amount for the two to be one unit.