Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AMD Graphics HP Intel Hardware Technology

Intel Launches 8th Gen Core Series CPUs With Integrated AMD Radeon Graphics (hothardware.com) 123

MojoKid writes: At CES 2018, Intel unveiled more details of its 8th generation Intel Core processors with integrated AMD Radeon RX Vega M graphics. Like cats and dogs living together, the mashup of an Intel processor with an AMD GPU is made possible by an Embedded Multi-Die Interconnect Bridge (EMIB), which provides a high-speed data interconnect between the processor, GPU and 4GB of second-generation High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM2). Intel is delivering 8th generation H-Series Core processors in 65W TDP (laptops) and 100W TDP (desktops) SKUs that will take up 50 percent less PCB real estate, versus traditional discrete configs. Both the mobile and desktop variants of the processors will be available in Core i5 or Core i7 configurations, with 4 cores and 8 threads, up to 8MB of cache and 4GB of HBM2. The 65W mobile processors can boost up to 4.1GHz, while the Radeon RX Vega M GL GPU has base/boost clocks of 931MHz and 1011MHz, respectively. The AMD GPU has 20 compute units and memory bandwidth checks in at 179GB/s. Desktop processors ratchet the maximum boost slightly to 4.2GHz, while the base/boost clocks of the Radeon RX Vega M GH GPU jump to 1063MHz and 1190MHz, respectively. Desktop GPUs are also upgraded with 24 CUs and 204GB/s of memory bandwidth. Intel says that its 8th generation Core i7 with Radeon RX Vega M GL graphics is up to 1.4x faster than a Core i7-8550U with an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 GPU in a notebook system. System announcements from Dell and HP are forthcoming, with availability in the first half of this year. Intel has also launched a new NUC small form factor gaming mini PC based on the technology as well.

Intel Launches 8th Gen Core Series CPUs With Integrated AMD Radeon Graphics

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Does it run Crysis?
  • by Osgeld ( 1900440 ) on Monday January 08, 2018 @05:44PM (#55888965)

    Meltdown?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Count me in!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Did anyone at Intel even think about the probable reaction to this announcement?

  • Too soon? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alexan Kulbashian ( 4438611 ) on Monday January 08, 2018 @05:48PM (#55889013)
    Seems like Meltdown and Spectre fixes might not be making this build.
    • You are kidding, right? Intel isn't going to fix Meldown unless they are forced to redesign. Their processors are flawed.
      • Re:Too soon? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Monday January 08, 2018 @06:58PM (#55889587)

        Meltdown is probably an easy fix even for the silicon. Spectre however, as far as I can see, is next to impossible to fix. Maybe somebody can correct me, but they need to get rid of the speculative execution pipeline all together.

        It really seems very facetious of them to try to sell everybody on their new CPUs with this very heavy baggage hanging over their chips.

        • Maybe somebody can correct me, but they need to get rid of the speculative execution pipeline all together.

          Or break the side-channel information leak of which cache lines were filled by the speculative execution (which is how the attacker finds out the value of the bits or bytes it shouldn't know).

          Or separate the branch predictions per-context (which is how the attacker gets the speculative execution to look at the desired bits or bytes).

          I like that last one. IMHO the behavior (especially the target addres

          • Never clear why CPU allows to walk the cache when the cache is shared. Of course I can see other's data. cache must not be visible to software at all. If any OS needs to see, it has to expect these kind of security issues. Software should not even know that the system has a cache or not. Or it must ensure cache lines are private per app just like how main memory is.
            I believe meltdown/spectre can't work if user can't walk/read the cache directly.
            • You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. CPUs don't allow you to 'walk the cache'. There is no way to 'walk/read the cache directly'. That's not how Meltdown works. The values that Meltdown reads off the (presumed) cached all belong to the process running the Meltdown exploit.

              • You are not supposed to see xyz; You tell system you like xyz and may want it (ie in speculative execution..not taken branch path) -- note you never asked it to give you xyz so you can't be found guilty. Now the system goes ahead -- being overly friendly n prepares xyz for you [out of order execution/speculative execution]. It doesn't matter where this xyz it stores, in cache/cpu-registers/special location. The system must not allow you to inspect this place. Whether it's walking the cache or reading from w
                • by Anonymous Coward

                  It's neither.

                  It's reading the value from RAM where you are allowed to read it, and measuring how long this takes.

                  If the result is returned faster than (slow) RAM can return it, it came from cache.

                  Unless you want to slow the cache down, there is no way to prevent this. And if that's your solution, you might just as well get rid of cache in the first place, making computers at least an order of magnitude slower.

                  (And while you are at it, you might just realize that RAM is basically a cache for the hard drive,

      • Working as intended fuck face.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Who is going to buy these CPUs? Intel knew about the bug for half a year and did not scratch the release? Linus was right then. They do intend to keep selling shit.

    • hahaha! corporate america will. have you seen the investor headlines regurgitating intel's spew? Intel has patch for spectre, which was the more serious bug! meltdown just takes a little patch!

      no, not kidding

    • No one wants to deal with the shit to fix this right now...including Intel. It's not just them. No one wants to replace every server, blade, PC they own. So we are going to let Microsoft and the Kernel community deal with it and duck our heads in the sand, in the land of security by belief.

  • by ISoldat53 ( 977164 ) on Monday January 08, 2018 @06:02PM (#55889171)
    I'm glad I don't have to give Intel road maps anymore. This is an 8th gem processor with i5/i7 core in how many chip sets, memory types, gpu types? AMD parts. Why not throw a RISC processor in to be sure.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Intel don't like taking RISCs

    • Why not throw a RISC processor in to be sure.

      They did that when they introduced the Pentium Pro.

  • Intel says that its 8th generation Core i7 with Radeon RX Vega M GL graphics is up to 1.4x faster than a Core i7-8550U with an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 GPU in a notebook system.

    That's actually a very impressive result. If I was buying a gaming machine, a 1050 is about the minimum. A 1050 TI would be better and it seems like this chip is in 1050 Ti territory.

  • I'm confused about AMD's business strategy with this move. They just finally got their foot back in the door with Ryzen being competitive against Intel after a decade of falling behind in performance. Topping this off of Intel not having a competitive solution to AMD's APU with a decent-performing 3D GPU, and AMD finally seemed poised to grow its share in the laptop & desktop market.

    But partnering with Intel to create an Intel APU defeats the purpose of buying an AMD APU.

    I suspect AMD has accepted tha

    • My guess is, this looks like something Apple asked for specifically.

      I guess we'll know in a few months, if they finally update the Mac mini and the MacBook Air.

    • Re:AMD's strategy (Score:5, Informative)

      by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Monday January 08, 2018 @06:49PM (#55889531) Homepage Journal

      But partnering with Intel to create an Intel APU defeats the purpose of buying an AMD APU.

      Not really.

      The AMD parts will be cheaper.

      They'll be easier to overclock.

      The AMD parts may have some advantages on bus interconnects, being from the same vendor (benchmarks will tell...).

      There's a real chance that Global gets to 7nm first.

      Yet ... somebody who really wants an Intel anyway and won't consider an AMD CPU -
        - well, they're getting AMD graphics. That helps in the AMD/nVidia marketshare battle and it looks like Intel may be existing that market as well.

    • How about "We ship silicon that is in 95% of all PCs"

      Getting a taste of practically everything sometimes adds up to more than all of very little.

  • With a Beowulf cluster of these....
  • Dear intel (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Khyber ( 864651 ) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Monday January 08, 2018 @06:54PM (#55889567) Homepage Journal

    Putting AMD hardware next to yours doesn't automatically grant immunity from Meltdown and Spectre. Nice try, though.

  • by WoTG ( 610710 ) on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @03:07AM (#55891699) Homepage Journal

    I understand Intel wanting a GPU to pair efficiently with their CPUs for the smallest form factors... but I don't see why AMD and not NVidia. Did NVidia turn them down? Or does Intel really consider NVidia, who doesn't make AMD64 chips, to be a bigger threat than AMD? Or is there something inherent in the GPU platforms that makes AMD possible but not NVidia?

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Working...