Read more.Quote:
Never saw this coming, did we?
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Never saw this coming, did we?
Nice! Looking forward to this:D
Why would anybody deliberately buy something with intel graphics?
The on chip GFX are better than that offered in the GM45 platform - no doubt the biggest attraction around this is its new fabrication technology allowing relatively low energy consumption and high performance - could possibly become the best CPU on the lower side of £100.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo75
I know the Intel roadmap development model refers to it like this, but I think it sounds backwards. The 'tick' should be the new microarchitecture design, and the 'tock' should be the same/similar architecture transitioned to a reduced process size.Quote:
it represents the 'tick' in the company's 'tick-tock' roadmap
http://zhost.tk/1/1b58f0ad553f5b74b04c88073dd28001.jpg
Well (1) it's better than integrated motherboard graphics, and (2) where's AMD Fusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo75
In my opinion it is fine the way it is. I relate "Tock" to a new architecture because of the deeper more vibrant sound it commands when you say it. Makes sense that way to me anyway :DQuote:
Originally Posted by latrosicarius
Only benefit on the die GPU will bring for CPU's is in the very low end of the market for price and low power. AMD could get some sort of gaming and video processing benefit since they'll use proper GPU architecture but that is still way off and currently not promising that much tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by latrosicarius
I really hope the Cell processor gets a consumer showing for gamers sooner rather than later since it is far better than any AMD or Intel CPU.
Really ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ExHail
Very much so>Quote:
Originally Posted by Terbinator
http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cell/Cell0_v2.html
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1727
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28microprocessor%29
The first sold units are found in the PS3 which basically just demonstrates its potential and brings a wealth of developers onto a new piece of hardware which is reportedly very different and thus more difficult to code for. IBM has plans on producing super computers with the processor, once that takes off it won't be long before we get Cell processors in the channel.
It is a much better system than what we currently have as it is universal and can link up with other devices to form a "super computer" from everyday equipment; eg TV, PS3, Computer and PDA using a Cell processor can connect wirelessly and assist each other with tasks. Of course the link between devices limits the sort of data throughput you can expect but it is a massive technological leap forward from the proprietary x86 CPU's both in flexibility and performance.
I'm not so sure on this. There has been some confusion lately on how committed IBM are to future Cell development (e.g. http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16530/38/). There are arguments if its just the next processor or if it's the whole Cell series. I think we'll need to wait and see whether Cell has any sort of great future ahead of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExHail
Cell has about as much chance of mainstream consumer success as ARM cores do.
Very much not. The SPUs in cell really can't do very much compared to PC architecture chips. It can do a few things pretty fast, but it's horribly narrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExHail
They tried to use it for graphics for example, but found it so bad they had to shoehorn in an RSX chip at the last minute.
If you're going to have a fast FP chip then you're better off using Tesla.
Probably less of a chance, at this point. :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve
At least developers are willing to write toolchains and hand-optimised-asm for ARM.
Isn't there a serious issue with the cell CPU though? The architecture is so different the only way current apps would run on it would be with a custom version of windows with an emulator running......i.e. poor performance until apps are re-written and possibly even being compiled into dual binaries much like apple did when they switched from PPC to x86.
Yes, it's a nightmare to develop for. If you think writing threaded/multicore code is tough on the poor ole 'x86' programmers, think how bad it is having to keep track of 8 discrete cores all of which are a completely different architecture from the primary execution core.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaithis