News Intel details first CPU with integrated GPU

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/02/10/intel-details-first-cpu-with-integrated-gpu/1

As if the demonstration of the world’s first 32nm process technology wasn’t enough, Intel has also announced a treasure chest of new products.

 

I dont need more than my q6600. In fact I have been thinking of replacing it with a faster dual core that I can overclock farther.
There just isn't the support in games for more than two and I would rather have the higher clock speed.

 

So will I be able to swap out my i7 920 for a Gulftown on my P6T? Or is it another round of MB upgrades?

 

I bet it's a new socket. Always bloody well is. This used to be a minor irritation, but lately, with more and more layers being used in MB PCBs, it's now a major issue: £200+ for a new MB is now something you don't wanna be doing too regularly. I miss the days of high end MBs being £80

 

Clarkdale - now THIS is going to be crap. Intel has a incredibly long tradition of making completely unusable IGPs. And I don't even think about gaming, the 950 is sluggish even with flash. I'm waiting for next move from AMD, there is a wise saying - "Intel does it first, AMD does it right".

 

i do not really see the point in creating more and more cores... how many applications have more than 2 treads? some video and data encryption/decryption software. ok, but that is not mainstream is it? are there no more significant core improvements sought after?

 

I don't get the point with putting a cpu and gpu on the same chip. I know it's going to be smaller and all that, but I just don't see why someone would sacrifice so much performance in gpu (and probably cpu) power just to get a more compact solution. I may seem like an idiot to some now, but I really can't see a market for this chip.

As some of you may already have seen I'm not too well informed about this gpu-cpu-thingy, so please enlighten me if what I say make you want to put two fingers in your throat and violate your cat or something...

 

I look at it as more of a work in progress. They have to somewhere, and I for one welcome this new product.

 

any word about larrabee?

 

I seriously hope Intel does get things right this time around with their GPU. X4500 is Sh*t. Their HD decoding does not even work either. ( Compare to how easy it is on Geforce )

 

I know most on here are focused on gaming, but there is still a very dedicated HTPC crowd. I'm almost tempted by the Ion platform, but I'll hold off for these CPU+ GPU procs. Imagine how small an HTPC could be? Integrate a digital OTA TV reciever on an ITX board, add a 500GB 2.5" HDD and slim bluray drive, and you could have a fully functional (even well performing) HTPC in a package the size of a Nintendo Wii, all with absolutely no compromises. And I bet it would cost only 300$USD.

I recently built my mother and sister a multiuse PC with the Nvidia 9300 and an E8500. I use a q6600 and an nvidia 8800GT, and if it weren't for gaming, I'd be a bit jealous of the speedy little comp I built them for less than $400.

 

Ok, so where was AMD "doing it right" after Intel released the CoreDuo/Core2 chips hmmmm????

 

Still trying to get it right. And while Intel forces you to buy a new motherboard every time a new CPU is released. AMD is winning the hearts of many people who just pop in the new AMD processor in their two year old motherboard and are happy with it.

 

What? AMD have more sockets than you can shake an underperforming processor at...

 

Ah..but it's not...it's a multi-chip-package...meaning ist like a small pcb on which they stuck the CPU and seperately the GPU and maybe even an extra controller chip.

The real speedbump (and energysavebump, good for notebooks) should come from an integrated silicon.

 

I think it is quite even:

AMD:
A
939
AM2
AM2+
AM3

Intel:
462
478
754
771
775
1366

 

You forgot the 940, and 754, 754 was single channel, 940 replaced it with dual channel support, but then 940 was put back and replaced with 939, only to resurface as AM2.


Intergrated graphics with in the CPU package, this is great news for the moblie market, easier to cool aswell as there would only be two hotspots the chip and chipset.

Nvidia showed the ION plateform which was about the size of a PICO, this developement could mean smaller than a PICO with HD playback! awesome! Seems more of a developement for moblie devices like netbooks and HTPC set top boxes.

 

Well if they are still trying then someone should get on with it.

Intel has not required a change of socket since the P4 chip. Now considering Core2 was released in July 2006, nearly 3 years ago, and the Core Duo was around for a year or so before that, that is a good 4 years for a socket life.

AMD released socket 939 in June 2004 and was replaced by AM2 in the May of 2006. Now the AM2 socket could only accept upto Athlon 64, Athlon 64 X2, Athlon 64 FX, Opteron, Sempron, Phenom. AM2+ was released a YEAR later to accept the Phenom II chips. AM3 is being released this year with support for DDR3.

So in the time intel have had ONE socket on the market for desktops, AMD have had 3, or 4 if you include the AM3.

So it is not unreasonable to except Intel to release a new socket with a new processor.

Kimbie

 

any one one who start's the "AMD has more sockets than you can shake a stick at" arguement should be flamed to hell and back

@Burnout - you forgot to mention obiwan that obi wan forgot

AMD

Desktop:
Super 7
Slot A
462
754
939
AM2/AM2+
AM3

Server:

940
1207/1207+
G34

Intel

Desktop:

Slot 1
370
423
478
Socket N
LGA 715
LGA 775
LGA 1366

Server:

Socket 8
Slot 2
603
604
LGA 771

So in the time intel have had ONE socket on the market for desktops, AMD have had 3, or 4 if you include the AM3.[/QUOTE]

@Nikumba, I didn't even want to get into chipsets, but your saying i could use a Yorkfield in an 850 board better yet a 975X board, right? Everytime intel changed chipsets it would be the AMD equivalent of adding a + next to the socket name so right now it's really LGA775+++++++++

 

well this should keep the core whores happy for a little while