And if so...why can't AMD make a fusion processor with a fast graphics portion like that which exists on the consoles?
And if so...why can't AMD make a fusion processor with a fast graphics portion like that which exists on the consoles?
They will once they move APUs to Zen CPU architecture and add HBM memory. Without HBM memory, it's not possible to increase the memory bandwidth of the GPU enough to remove the bottleneck. The biggest argument against this idea is that you can often buy a stand-alone CPU and a discrete GPU for similar amount of $ and they will outperform the APU on both the CPU and GPU side.
Bandwidth is not the only problem with apus. You also have the problem of combining a hundred watt plus gpu with a 100 watt cpu(for amd at least) and cooling it properly. Finally, a separate cpu and dgpu is a much more flexible package in a desktop because you can upgrade the gpu separately. This is critical because a good cpu can last through several gpu upgrades, considering the much faster progress of gpus relative to cpus.
You can upgrade the GPU in the APU as well, you can even use DUAL Graphics and increase the performance of the APU at lower price than a CPU + dGPU.
Assuming the CPU portion of the APU isn't a bottleneck, which it usually is for general gaming.
AMD simply wasn't able to boost their general CPU performance @ same wattage enough with each new round of APUs, nor able to push the software ecosystem to give them that "edge" over Intel systems at the same price point. Dual GPU performance always has been iffy.
Plus so few people know who AMD is. Had AMD been able to secure that Apple contract with Llano, I bet things would be a much different story. Not only would more people know who they are, but the APU software ecosystem would've received the huge boost it needed to thrive since you'd have all those photo and video editors benefiting from the graphics portion of the APU.
It's just one long sad story that missed so many crucial opportunities. I really hope Zen avoids being a big-graphics APU unless it finally realizes the HSA dream by natively using GPU SIMD to augment the CPU cores.
Man oh man how awesome would a theoretical Nintendo NX with about 1800 Shaders and a few Zen cores be? 8 GB of HBM2 memory for the entire system and voila! New king of consoles!
Really, really want to see nintendo have AMD build something like this for them..
Man oh man how awesome would a theoretical Nintendo NX with about 1800 Shaders and a few Zen cores be? 8 GB of HBM2 memory for the entire system and voila! New king of consoles!
Really, really want to see nintendo have AMD build something like this for them..
And?And 6 months later, Sony and Microsoft put out new consoles.
Well i was talking about hybrid Cross Fire, example (prices from newegg)
Core i3 4330 at $135
R7 250 2GB DDR3 at $55
Total = $190
A10-7850K at $140
At a lower cost, the AMD A10-7850K almost has the same GPU performance and same CPU MT performance. If you OC the APU it will have both higher CPU MT and iGPU performance than the Core i3 + R7 250 DDR3.
-------------------
A10-7850K at $140
R7 250 2GB DDR3 at $55
Total = $195
The A10-7850K with dual graphics (Hybrid CF) will be ~2x faster than the Core i3 + R7 250 at the same price.
CPU wise, MT workloads will be faster with the A10-7850K at 4GHz+. The only thing Core i3 has is single thread and lower CPU consumption.
Also I have little faith in Hybrid CFX. The "boost" in FPS, even in non-hybrid CF never seems to be worth it's cost. From a budget standpoint, I'd ditch the 7850K for an 860K, and dump the savings into a better graphics card. To hell with Hybrid CF.
Third, most benchmarks I've seen show the i3-4330 beating the 7850K. The A10 winning or matching the i3 is a very case-by-case basis.
The 7850K only makes sense to me when you can't have a graphics card for something like a really small HTPC, in which case, there are cheaper options that get the job done anyways.
Now for a system builder, the 7850K could be a wealth of value in selling cheap "gaming systems" to those making initial jumps into the world of PC gaming. However, the 860K + dGPU makes more sense to me since you can get an 860K + R7 250X (full Cape Verde!) for almost as cheap as the 7850.
And if so...why can't AMD make a fusion processor with a fast graphics portion like that which exists on the consoles?
RussianSensation said you can have a faster CPU + faster dGPU at the same price as an APU.
Even if we only take prices in the US, Athlon 860K is at $78 and R7 250X at $65 after mail rebate. Total of $143 when A10-7850K is at $140. So we cannot have both Faster CPU + fraster dGPU at the same price.
And if we look at the rest of the world, for example in EU the Athlon 860K starts from 70 Euro, cheapest R7 250X at 84 Euro for a total of 154 Euro when the A10-7850K starts at 128 Euro.
............................For the US market that is correct because of the low R7 250X prices, but in the rest of the world that hardware combination is more expensive than the A10-7850K alone.
Worth being clear that it is very hard to believe that there's anything technical stopping AMD producing a desktop APU with a cache like the XB1 (and IrisPro) has. They've clearly got the technology and are mass producing it reasonably inexpensively for the consoles.
Also an attractive thing to do a priori - just as a 'look what we can do' iGPU part. It'd get some sales in small boxes but it is also just useful to have that sort of thing around for the halo effect.
That they haven't is presumably down to their current struggles and consequent need to focus on things with the best return. Oh well.