AnandTech said:More importantly however, a tiny Ivy means that Intel could have given us a much bigger GPU without breaking the bank. I hinted at this possibility in our Ivy Bridge architecture article. Unfortunately at the time only Apple was interested in a hypothetical Ivy Bridge GT3 and rumor has it that Otellini wasn't willing to make a part that only one OEM would buy in large quantities. We will eventually get the GPU that Apple wanted, but it'll be next year, with Haswell GT3. And the GPU that Apple really really wanted? That'll be GT4, with Broadwell in 2014.
What do you mean by separate read/write paths?Ivy Bridge's slow evolution for the IGP means that the read/write paths are separate, something AMD has only just moved past for GCN.
I don't think it's that much of a problem for intel. They have split caches in the gpu itself but they still have a coherent read/write cache in the form of the LLC. But yes it looks like there's room for improvement.Ivy Bridge's slow evolution for the IGP means that the read/write paths are separate, something AMD has only just moved past for GCN.
At some point, it seems Intel would move past this.
Trinity and either this or Intel's next IGP may be the last examples of the split memory pipeline.
With the programmability aspects being fleshed out, the thing that seems more important is how effectively stacked DRAM or interposer connections can begin to eat into the discrete board's memory bandwidth advantage, and how quickly the various competitors can get to that point.
Once coherence extends to discretes, I think a lot of their weakness can be done away with.The CPU memory bus has additional constraints that weigh it down, thanks to the multidrop bus and the number of discontinuities from the CPU to socket to motherboard to slot to DIMM.
A discrete board could still hold the advantage, but it may not be the near order of magnitude between a desktop processor and an enthusiast video card.
The larger power envelope remains an advantage, for now.
However, I remember when Intel introduced the BTX spec, to betther handle heat from the CPU socket. The primary need evaporated when more efficient chips than Prescott came about.
The funny thing is that back in the days when BTX was mocked for trying to cater to an overheated CPU burning north of 100 watts, GPUs weren't 300 Watt monstrosities with blowers.
Ivy Bridge didn't signficantly change the level of integration between the CPU and GPU portions, but it was hinted that the next round will be different.
Once memory spaces become shared with an Intel design or AMD's avowed goal with its heterogenous compute model, the discrete board's real weak point as a slave device spanning a high latency bus will become more difficult to hide.
Once the GPU is on a interposer, why keep it on the far side of an expansion bus, or out of a socket?
Was something like the BTX thermal module so bad now that we have graphics boards taking up two or three expansion slots?
For what data types? UAVs?GCN now has a read/write capability down the same path.
They may do it because the shrinking volume of the discrete market may make it too expensive to have a GPU-only chip. There may be a range of APUs, with some having a very high balance of GPU capability. Perhaps a gamer system with dual sockets, one heavy on the CPU, the other on GPU?And who knows, may be adding a small CPU core or two (bobcat ish) on a discrete might not be such a bad idea after all.
So we got back to the questions, why should we ( end user ) want or need Integrated Graphics?
price
How fast does it need to be to send email or use facebook?Price but with awful performance, it doesn't make sense.
How fast does it need to be to send email or use facebook?
price
