fpg:
re: More integration, more performance, lower cost... I don't see the problem.
Me neither. But this is a stated focus for Intel, has been for a long time. What makes you think AMD is ahead in this area? We're talking lower end graphics...
A) I never said anything about Intel. I was addressing your and ephud's general comments that integrating CPU/GPU features was not possible and/or cost-effective, before you qualified your position as relating to high-end graphics only (which was never a subject of discussion in the thread.)
B) Others have pointed out that Intel's integrated graphics are inferior to ATI's (now AMD's) and NVidia's.
C) AMD is definitely ahead of Intel in terms of system architecture with their half-decade lead (at least!) in processor architecture and scalability, I.e. their on-board switch tying together compute, communication, and memory resources. (I'll just grant you that CMW's microarchitecture is better, at the moment.)
DAAMIT owns demonstrably (and demonstratedly) better graphics, CPU architecture, and system architecture technology.
Though I haven't already, for you, I now explicitly state my firm belief that AMD is ahead of Intel WRT producing an integrated CPU/GPU, in terms of both performance and schedule. IMHO, for you to argue otherwise, you'll have to rely on Faith In Intel.
fpg |
