gCPU vs APU

[Maximilian]

Which term do you prefer for this new breed of CPUs that include on chip/die graphics? Ive never seen gCPU used before reading this:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/sandy-brige-fusion-amd-intel,news-35201.html

 

[taltamir]

we have been integrating things into the CPU for years. The math coprocessor, the memory controller, PCI controller, clock generator, the entire northbridge, now the GPU... and integration will continue.
I don't see why it needs to have its name changed from "Central Processing Unit"... especially when you think about it, a GPU is nothing but a secondary dedicated graphics CPU; and that the CPU is now more "Central" then ever thanks to constant integration.
So I vote for just CPU

 

[nonameo]

we have been integrating things into the CPU for years. The math coprocessor, the memory controller, PCI controller, clock generator, the entire northbridge, now the GPU... and integration will continue.
I don't see why it needs to have its name changed from "Central Processing Unit"... especially when you think about it, a GPU is nothing but a secondary dedicated graphics CPU; and that the CPU is now more "Central" then ever thanks to constant integration.
So I vote for just CPU

Dear lord I feel like an idiot.

 

[Arkadrel]

APU is for Accelerated Processing Unit, I believe.

I think it comes from "Hardware Acceleration", via the GPU mixed with the CPU name.
So because these new proccessors have GPGPU capabilties it makes sense you use it in the name to indicate it.

(hardware) Accelerated + Proccessing Unit.

 

[taltamir]

1. We know where it comes from
2. It totally fails. You might not have noticed but the CPU is hardware. Also the GPU runs software.
The notion that CPU is "software" and GPU is "hardware" is an entirely arbitrary definition. Well, ok almost entirely. It comes from the days that the GPU was doing its work via fixed function inflexible hardware, while the CPU was programmable hardware (software). But nowadays the GPU is flexible and programmable.

 

[dma0991]

I don't think the name APU is totally necessary unless of course the name itself can give me an extra 12 hours of battery life then I think the name APU is absolutely necessary. :awe:

The majority of forumers here might know what is it with or without the name APU but the majority of less informed consumers might not know what it might be. I think the name is such to differentiate themselves a little from CPUs. Makes it a lot easier for the majority of consumers to understand that an APU=CPU+GPU.

Just like how they are naming the combination of CPU and GPU regardless of AMD or Intel as GEMs or graphic enabled microprocessors. Don't tell your wife/girlfriend that you want to give them GEMs though. They might misinterpret GEMs for something else. :biggrin:

 

[Idontcare]

Every new CPU is an APU relative to the previous generation.

Acronyms are marketing tools. Why be a tool of marketing.

Creating new acronyms is not a solution to marketing's efforts to create tools for themselves. More tools are not the solution.

When AMD added 3DNow! to their CPU's they did not suddenly call the new and improved CPU an "APU".

When Intel added SSE4.2 to their CPU's they did not suddenly call the new CPU an "APU".

When AMD added the IMC to their CPU they did not suddenly call the new CPU and "APU".

When Intel added the FPU to their CPU they did not suddenly call the new CPU and "APU".

This "APU" and "Fusion" naming BS is just more of the same value-less marketing BS that was the whole "monolithic" and "native" quad-core BS that came with Phenom.

If AMD made memory the next gen DDR4 stuff would be called the "AMU".

If AMD made SSD's the next gen Flash SSD would be called the "ASSDU".

And you don't want to let ASSDU happen to you.

We already have CPU's, we know what that means and entails. Whatever goes into the CPU is part of the CPU...be it the FPU, the L2$, the L3$, the uncore, the IMC, the northbridge, the IGPU, etc.

 

[nenforcer]

I started computing on a Packard Bell 486SX 20, which lacked a working floating point unit.

If you had a working FPU, it was called a 486DX not a 486 w/APU.

 

[Soulkeeper]

I thought UMPC was a nice term for these miniature notebooks they've been releasing.
Then they decided "netbook" was better, ohh well

 

[Arkadrel]

When a GPU is by itself.... its called a GPU.
Move that GPU with somewhere else and its not?

I feel like the APU is a differnt product than a CPU, because it has a GPU in it (and the compute power from the GPU).


I mean.... a Applepie has Apples in it.... but its still called a applepie and not just "apple".

I think its okay they call them APUs, its their product...and the A (instead of C), makes it clear what it is and what it can do. *IF* CPU term is used, it wont be enough to realise if its 1 thing or another, without useing more time explaining exactly what is inside the "cpu" that your refering too.

 

[taltamir]

I mean.... a Applepie has Apples in it.... but its still called a applepie and not just "apple".

other way around... an apple pie has apples in it but its still a "pie". Pie = CPU
apple = GPU
The thing is, if you take a "fruit pie" which has nuts, and pears, and grapes, and cranberries, and peaches and cream and add apples to it, is it now no longer a "fruit pie" but instead an "Apple Pie"?

However, the analogy is also flawed because of what GPU and CPU means. Your analogy was that CPU is apple and GPU is pie. Even a slightly more sane analogy where the CPU is the pie and the GPU is an apple would still be highly flawed because there is absolutely nothing that ties either the GPU or the CPU to the foodstuff you chose. There is nothing that can be linked to a pie in the CPU, and nothing that can be linked to apples in the GPU. it is just arbitrary choice you just made to justify your position.

 

[Dark Shroud]

I'm not opposed to the term APU to mean a CPU with a GPU or "vector" core. Though it used to be that APU could be used for Audio Processor Unit but I don't care anymore. I'll still call them CPUs to keep it simple and I'm sure most people will as well.

 

[Lonyo]

APU and gCPU aren't the same realistically, and both are arguably different to CPU as we know it for "PCs".
CPU = x86-based processor.
APU = x86-based processor + GPU which supports "other" instructional stuff and can (in theory) be used by applications (e.g. OpenCL stuff).
gCPU = x86-based processor which integrates a GPU, which may or may not be capable of accelerating things via other instructions (e.g. may support OpenCL, may not support it, but can run 3D graphics and output to a display).

AMD's "APU" is supposed to combine a CPU and a piece of hardware (the GPU) which can accelerate tasks.
CPU + GPU (gCPU) can include things which don't do much beyond basic 3D, such as older Intel CPUs and VIA CPUs (as the article mentions), so interchanging gCPU and APU makes no sense.

An ape is a mammal, but you can't call all mammals apes, etc.
An APU is a gCPU, but not all gCPUs are APUs.

(And yes, APU is a marketing thing).

 

[taltamir]

APU and gCPU aren't the same realistically, and both are arguably different to CPU as we know it for "PCs".
CPU = x86-based processor.
APU = x86-based processor + GPU which supports "other" instructional stuff and can (in theory) be used by applications (e.g. OpenCL stuff).
gCPU = x86-based processor which integrates a GPU, which may or may not be capable of accelerating things via other instructions (e.g. may support OpenCL, may not support it, but can run 3D graphics and output to a display).

PowerPC, SPARC, ARM, and Itanium are all CPUs which are not x86 based.

 

[Idontcare]

That's the beauty of the acronym CPU...it is already intentionally generic enough so as to be universally applied.

If Nvida's GPU could be used as a stand-alone processor complete with booting its OS, sans any other CPU in the computer, then that Nvidia GPU would no longer be referred to as a GPU as it would then be the CPU for the computer in question.

I have no utility of a new acronym that communicates nothing new to me in terms of what the CPU is capable of doing beyond whatever is already captured in the product's name.

I had no trouble understanding the functional difference between a 486-SX and a 486-DX, and they were both sold as CPUs.

Just as I have no difficulty understanding that SPARC Niagara is not the same as EPIC Itanium and yet I understand their purpose by virtue of them both being called "CPUs".

Tell me Llano is an APU, not a CPU, and you've entered into a realm of needless acronym gibberish the likes of MCM and IMC and 3DNow!. All just part and parcel of the evolving feature set of whatever my nex-gen CPU is going to be capable of doing. No need to adorn it with a new acronym.

The innovation should be occurring in the architecture, not the naming of it. The last time I had to slog through this much spin and hype regarding marketing features it was from Intel and it was their efforts to make the P4 cool and hip by naming and marketing things like "trace cache" and "netburst".

I really had high hopes that AMD would avoid the trappings of such marketing...but alas here we are nevertheless. Sigh.

 

[Arkadrel]

If Nvida's GPU could be used as a stand-alone processor complete with booting its OS, sans any other CPU in the computer, then that Nvidia GPU would no longer be referred to as a GPU as it would then be the CPU for the computer in question.

would that make Project Denver a CPU then?

Tell me Llano is an APU, not a CPU, and you've entered into a realm of needless acronym gibberish the likes of MCM and IMC and 3DNow!. All just part and parcel of the evolving feature set of whatever my nex-gen CPU is going to be capable of doing. No need to adorn it with a new acronym.

All that stuff is related to CPU task right? stuff that shows up in your Task Manager.


The graphics bit... that doesnt show up there, so a gpu does things one doesnt assume a CPU task. How many people play games on their CPU?... usually people ask about how fast their GPU is, because they consider it something differnt (than a cpu, and that which is most important for gameing (performance wise)).

Clearly the consensus is that a gpu is something differnt than a cpu, the task it does differnt. Why when put into a CPU does it just simply get absorbed?

How can one tell apart one CPU that has such a IGP in it, from one that doesnt? (if their both named CPU and CPU) isnt a new acconym befitting for such? I mean it makes one hellva a differnce, if you order a cpu, and expect it to work as your graphics card, and you find out it doesnt have a IGP in it. Your stuck buying a discrete because you couldnt tell one CPU apart from a vastly differnt one with a IGP in it. (not all CPUs can do graphics, to avoid consumer confusion, a new term is a good idea)

Not all CPUs have gpus in them... isnt it easier to have a new Acconym for those that do?

 

[podspi]

If Nvida's GPU could be used as a stand-alone processor complete with booting its OS, sans any other CPU in the computer, then that Nvidia GPU would no longer be referred to as a GPU as it would then be the CPU for the computer in question.

I thought Nvidia did port Linux to their Fermi arch? :awe: It just didn't run well... :hmm:

I think APU is the better term, rather than gCPU or just CPU. For me, APU refers to a heterogeneous-core cluster. Current APUs aren't really good examples of APUs, because really they're like CPUs+GPUs. I think (hope) future APUs will have more varied configurations than the ones we see today.

For example, imagine an APU that integrates two strong x86 cores, a strong vector cluster, one or two weaker (but very low power) ARM cores, and a core that is able to natively run .Net or java bytecode. I could imagine a few uses of that...

Or imagine an APU that is designed purely for office work, and so the ratio of integer-to-FPU is even higher than BD's, with a built-in GPU that can (in a pinch) process floating workloads.

Or imagine an APU that is designed for folding :biggrin:

AMD's vision (heh) as far as I could tell was that the era of just pounding away at general-purpose computing power was over. We have enough of that, we can use the rest of the transistor budget for dedicated circuitry that can do things much, much faster. Honestly, I think Quiksync speaks to this more than anything I've seen from AMD yet, though I'm hopeful.

Edit:
And as far as AMD and marketing are concerned, they've done much worse than trying to differentiate their offerings from Intel. "Unlocked and loaded" (I realize they haven't started that one... yet) or "Ready, Willing, and Stable?" Now THAT was low...

That would've been like if last year Honda placed an advertisement in a magazine of one of their cars just stopped at a stop sign. Maybe I should go into marketing...

 

[Idontcare]

would that make Project Denver a CPU then?




All that stuff is related to CPU task right? stuff that shows up in your Task Manager.


The graphics bit... that doesnt show up there, so a gpu does things one doesnt assume a CPU task. How many people play games on their CPU?... usually people ask about how fast their GPU is, because they consider it something differnt (than a cpu, and that which is most important for gameing (performance wise)).

Clearly the consensus is that a gpu is something differnt than a cpu, the task it does differnt. Why when put into a CPU does it just simply get absorbed?

How can one tell apart one CPU that has such a IGP in it, from one that doesnt? (if their both named CPU and CPU) isnt a new acconym befitting for such? I mean it makes one hellva a differnce, if you order a cpu, and expect it to work as your graphics card, and you find out it doesnt have a IGP in it. Your stuck buying a discrete because you couldnt tell one CPU apart from a vastly differnt one with a IGP in it. (not all CPUs can do graphics, to avoid consumer confusion, a new term is a good idea)

Not all CPUs have gpus in them... isnt it easier to have a new Acconym for those that do?

I thought Nvidia did port Linux to their Fermi arch? :awe: It just didn't run well... :hmm:

I think APU is the better term, rather than gCPU or just CPU. For me, APU refers to a heterogeneous-core cluster. Current APUs aren't really good examples of APUs, because really they're like CPUs+GPUs. I think (hope) future APUs will have more varied configurations than the ones we see today.

For example, imagine an APU that integrates two strong x86 cores, a strong vector cluster, one or two weaker (but very low power) ARM cores, and a core that is able to natively run .Net or java bytecode. I could imagine a few uses of that...

Or imagine an APU that is designed purely for office work, and so the ratio of integer-to-FPU is even higher than BD's, with a built-in GPU that can (in a pinch) process floating workloads.

Or imagine an APU that is designed for folding :biggrin:

AMD's vision (heh) as far as I could tell was that the era of just pounding away at general-purpose computing power was over. We have enough of that, we can use the rest of the transistor budget for dedicated circuitry that can do things much, much faster. Honestly, I think Quiksync speaks to this more than anything I've seen from AMD yet, though I'm hopeful.

Edit:
And as far as AMD and marketing are concerned, they've done much worse than trying to differentiate their offerings from Intel. "Unlocked and loaded" (I realize they haven't started that one... yet) or "Ready, Willing, and Stable?" Now THAT was low...

That would've been like if last year Honda placed an advertisement in a magazine of one of their cars just stopped at a stop sign. Maybe I should go into marketing...

Coprocessor

 

[Arkadrel]

I still think that a APU is a fitting term.

1) it does graphics which isnt a normal cpu task.
2) the gpu part of the cpu, is probably bigger than the int cores part.
3) GPGPU acceleration.


benefits of a new term:
1) people dont buy a cpu, find out it doesnt have a gpgpu abiltiies/GPU in it.
(not all CPUs are APUs, and a cpu isnt just a cpu, if the differnce between them is this big)

 

[podspi]

Coprocessor

I remember (as I am sure you do as well) when a graphics card was called a "video adapter". Then they changed into "graphics accelerators" and then somewhere along the lines they began being called "GPUs".

One could make the argument that it was empty marketing that caused these changes (certainly a Radeon 6990 is a video adapter, no?) but these terms have morphed for marketing and differentiation reasons. Both GPUs and CPUs can traditionally perform very different operations. I don't think it is too outlandish to call the true combination of them something different.


That being said, this could very easily backfire on AMD (my kid said I needed a fast CPU, not APU!), and I don't think APU is a very accurate name for what AMD or Intel are selling now. But I have gotten used to it, and don't think it's as outrageous as that old Intel commercial "Pentium 4 for faster internet! WITH NETBURST"

 

[wahdangun]

yeah i think just using CPU term is make sense for us but for illiterate people its more make sense because they will know what the CPU can do and they will not confusing with cpu without GPU in it

 

[Mopetar]

Might be useful to be able to easily differentiate between whether or a not a CPU has graphics as well instead of remembering all of the models for every manufacturer.

I prefer APU over gCPU since it's shorter and easier to distinguish, but realistically we've already been using a different name for a while that could describe these new processors just as succinctly: SoC.

 

[Raduque]

benefits of a new term:
1) people dont buy a cpu, find out it doesnt have a gpgpu abiltiies/GPU in it.
(not all CPUs are APUs, and a cpu isnt just a cpu, if the differnce between them is this big)

Just put on the damn box and in the product description if it has a graphics core or not.

Whether or not it's called an APU, gCPU, or Super Happy Fun Graphics Time Processing Unit 5! people will still screw up buying it somehow.

 

[Ken g6]

would that make Project Denver a CPU then?

Yes! It's a CPU with a (large) vector coprocessor. The Cell processor is quite similar. Would you call it an APU then?

 

[gorobei]

i'll be using APU for the time being, if only for the specificity. Until all cpu's being sold contain a gpu as well, it is worth differentiating with a different term.

Once expectations of parallel vector function in a cpu are default, we can go back to just cpu.

or split the difference:
apu vs cpu = bpu aBc
cpu vs gpu = epu cdEfg