AMD Delivers the World's First and Only APU for Embedded Systems

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

And atom does not have a DX-11 GPU in it. That is where we are getting all of the design wins - people are seeing that atom does not have the features that they need

since when do people who run atom procs need dx11 ?

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

since when do people who run atom procs need dx11 ?

Direct Compute is a huge performance booster in alot of CPU heavy applications. DX support brings direct compute.

[n-ster]

Originally Posted by Thatguy

Direct Compute is a huge performance booster in alot of CPU heavy applications. DX support brings direct compute.

IIRC DirectCompute can run on DX10 perfectly fine

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by n-ster

IIRC DirectCompute can run on DX10 perfectly fine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX

also dx11 better supports multithreading. I see no mention of directCompute for gpu acceleration in the dx10 article AFAIK dx10 does not support DC.

[streetfighter 2]

My only complaint is when I buy one of these suckers to build an HTPC for my mom how is she not going to think it's just an oddly shapen rock?

Can't they make these things bigger?

[n-ster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectCompute

[JF-AMD]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

since when do people who run atom procs need dx11 ?

There are a lot of embedded applications that benefit from richer graphics. Gaming devices, medical imaging, set top boxes, kiosks with interactive media, things along those lines.

Embedded platforms are often built with an expectation of 5 or more years of life. So, in that sense, by the time these things are halfway through their life, there is still a need for future graphics.

If you were a cable company building an IPTV set top box that needed to stream content from 2011 through 2016, would you want DX10 or DX11?

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

There are a lot of embedded applications that benefit from richer graphics. Gaming devices, medical imaging, set top boxes, kiosks with interactive media, things along those lines.

Embedded platforms are often built with an expectation of 5 or more years of life. So, in that sense, by the time these things are halfway through their life, there is still a need for future graphics.

If you were a cable company building an IPTV set top box that needed to stream content from 2011 through 2016, would you want DX10 or DX11?

I am waiting for the 28nm ARM competitor annoucements. I know you guys are building a arm killer for phones with the APU tech.

I would love to see a world of just one damn instruction set.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

There are a lot of embedded applications that benefit from richer graphics. Gaming devices, medical imaging, set top boxes, kiosks with interactive media, things along those lines.

Embedded platforms are often built with an expectation of 5 or more years of life. So, in that sense, by the time these things are halfway through their life, there is still a need for future graphics.

If you were a cable company building an IPTV set top box that needed to stream content from 2011 through 2016, would you want DX10 or DX11?

well i certainly wouldn't use something that calls itself, "the world's first." they are always fraught with problems. i would wait to see it out in the wild for several months unless of course the guy selling them to me is willing to massively discount them. and by the time the product gets all of its bugs worked out i will have settled with trusty dx10 for all of my embedded needs.

[wahdangun]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

well i certainly wouldn't use something that calls itself, "the world's first." they are always fraught with problems. i would wait to see it out in the wild for several months unless of course the guy selling them to me is willing to massively discount them. and by the time the product gets all of its bugs worked out i will have settled with trusty dx10 for all of my embedded needs.

what ??? you can still use your "trusty" DX 10 code on it

btw its for embedded entertainment thing, like karaoke box or even arcade machine, so its need latest visual enchantment

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by wahdangun

what ??? you can still use your "trusty" DX 10 code on it

btw its for embedded entertainment thing, like karaoke box or even arcade machine, so its need latest visual enchantment

my point is if you resell products that use embedded systems you go with a proven product, not with "the world's first." yea, dx11 has a couple of nice features of dx10 but the difference is negligible on these tiny chips. the headache and customer service overhead isnt worth it IMO. i would just go with something Intel or VIA was offering.

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

my point is if you resell products that use embedded systems you go with a proven product, not with "the world's first." yea, dx11 has a couple of nice features of dx10 but the difference is negligible on these tiny chips. the headache and customer service overhead isnt worth it IMO. i would just go with something Intel or VIA was offering.

I keep forgetting the AMD has never made the stars core or a dx 11 gpu before.

silly me.

[pr0n Inspector]

Originally Posted by Thatguy

I keep forgetting the AMD has never made the stars core or a dx 11 gpu before.

silly me.

Yes, because "it just works". Testing is for sissies.

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by pr0n Inspector

Yes, because "it just works". Testing is for sissies.

all they did for the most part was shrunk and integrated the pcie bus and associated hardware and stuck it on a die. I am sure they tested its performance we saw working silicon like 10 months ago popping up at a tech demo or investors day. Maybe it was hotchips.

Either way, this thing is likely solid as can be.

However silly comments like this one and the one above it, are that silly. AMD knows how to make chips.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by Thatguy

all they did for the most part was shrunk and integrated the pcie bus and associated hardware and stuck it on a die. I am sure they tested its performance we saw working silicon like 10 months ago popping up at a tech demo or investors day. Maybe it was hotchips.

Either way, this thing is likely solid as can be.

However silly comments like this one and the one above it, are that silly. AMD knows how to make chips.

it's not the chips. it's the software that makes the chip work that is untested...

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

it's not the chips. it's the software that makes the chip work that is untested...

Its going to basically be the same software. Same hardware " for all intensive purposes".

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by Thatguy

Its going to basically be the same software. Same hardware " for all intensive purposes".

it can't possible be the same software as it is a brand new chip.

[n-ster]

AMD isn't a completely new company, why would you think they'd screw it up? AMD know what they are doing, sure there is a chance that they MIGHT perhaps possibly maybe screw something up, doesn't means that they will. Innovation and something new doesn't mean it is bad. Hell, the world would be nowhere if everyone was scared to try something a little bit newer.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by n-ster

AMD isn't a completely new company, why would you think they'd screw it up? AMD know what they are doing, sure there is a chance that they MIGHT perhaps possibly maybe screw something up, doesn't means that they will. Innovation and something new doesn't mean it is bad. Hell, the world would be nowhere if everyone was scared to try something a little bit newer.

im not saying they would screw it up. i am saying most companies go with proven tech rather than invest millions in something that is "the world's first."

[n-ster]

they spend millions to innovate and make that new thing proven tech. How do you thing the current proven tech was made? It was first the world's first at some point before becoming proven tech.

Give the "world's first" a chance.

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

im not saying they would screw it up. i am saying most companies go with proven tech rather than invest millions in something that is "the world's first."

I'm not really seeing alot of firsts outside of the packaging and integration. the software ecosystem will be just fine.

mole hill meet mountain.

[pr0n Inspector]

Originally Posted by n-ster

they spend millions to innovate and make that new thing proven tech. How do you thing the current proven tech was made? It was first the world's first at some point before becoming proven tech.

Give the "world's first" a chance.

They will. After a year, or two.

[wahdangun]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

it can't possible be the same software as it is a brand new chip.

didn't embedded system develop their own software ??? and because its X86 so they can use windows based system (wich are a "proven" software) and tbh, usually embedded system just run one specific software like karaoke, games and etc. so if they can't iron out the bug then it was their problem and not AMD because this APU is just a graphic card on CPU die.


and btw if you mean world first is unproven and unreliable, then why the hell AMD gain market share with their opeteron64, i mean isn't server need more reliability than embedded system ??

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

That market is not about benchmarks. It's about cost, size, board size, power/heat and the level of component integration.

In those areas we rock.

so why isn't this passive? most embedded systems try to do without fans mostly due to location and lack of well cleaning

[JF-AMD]

Originally Posted by wahdangun

didn't embedded system develop their own software ??? and because its X86 so they can use windows based system (wich are a "proven" software) and tbh, usually embedded system just run one specific software like karaoke, games and etc. so if they can't iron out the bug then it was their problem and not AMD because this APU is just a graphic card on CPU die.


and btw if you mean world first is unproven and unreliable, then why the hell AMD gain market share with their opeteron64, i mean isn't server need more reliability than embedded system ??

There is lots of embedded x86 sw (linux/windows based). Proprietary OS's still exist but the growth is in standard OS's.

Originally Posted by cdawall

so why isn't this passive? most embedded systems try to do without fans mostly due to location and lack of well cleaning

There are plenty of passive designs.