View Single Post
Old 01-Sep-2011, 18:10   #53
TKK
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 147
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkultala View Post
Any basis for the claim that these are different? (when not counting the memory architecture which is of course different because there is also cache-coherent CPU in the same chip)
Granted, I don't know for sure.

That being said, my reasoning goes like this:
To keep the development as simple and short as possible, it would be easiest to take an existing GPU design and fuse it with the CPU. The only 5-SIMD design AMD made and probably had ready when Llano was designed was Redwood, and I assume Llano's GPU is based on it.
The UVD engine is probably easy to upgrade since it's a bit separated (layout-wise) from the rest of the GPU. But Barts & Co. had their TMUs and Tesselation unit updated as well.
I'm not saying it's impossible that AMD ported those over to Llano, but considering the market & performance segment Llano is targeting, I think it's at least possible that they didn't bother. They had their hands full enough with solving more pressing issues like yields and power consumption, I think.

But you're right, it might me architecturally identical to NI-VLIW5 GPUs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hkultala View Post
And I would not say "always lag", Llano had their first GPU manufactured with "CPU process", and Trinity will be only second, it also takes time to "develop the development process" so that they can quickly integrate their new GPU's into APU's.
Fair enough, they may get there some time in the future. The time gap will certainly shrink, but I think it's easier (and less risky) to integrate a finished design than a work-in-progress design, that's why I wouldn't expect, let's say, Trinity successor with GCNv2 two months after discrete GCNv2. Unless they're made on the same manufacturing process, then it might be a somewhat different matter.
TKK is offline   Reply With Quote