Friday, June 17th 2011

AMD Charts Path for Future of its GPU Architecture

The future of AMD's GPU architecture looks more open, broken from the shackles of a fixed-function, DirectX-driven evolution model, and that which increases the role of GPU in the PC's central processing a lot more than merely accelerating GPGPU applications. At the Fusion Developer Summit, AMD detailed its future GPU architecture, revealing that in the future, AMD's GPUs will have full support for C, C++, and other high-level languages. Integrated with Fusion APUs, these new number-crunching components will be called "scalar co-processors".

Scalar co-processors will combine elements of MIMD (multiple-instruction multiple-data,) SIMD (single-instruction multiple data), and SMT (simultaneous multithreading). AMD will ditch the VLIW (very long instruction word) model that has been in use for several of AMD's past GPU architectures. While AMD's GPU model will break from the shackles of development that is pegged to that of DirectX, it doesn't believe that APIs such as DirectX and OpenGL will be discarded. Game developers can continue to develop for these APIs, and C++ support is more for general purpose compute applications. That does, however, create a window for game developers to venture out of the API-based development model (specifically DirectX). With its next Fusion processors, the GPU and CPU components will make use of a truly common memory address space. Among other things, this eliminate the "glitching" players might sometimes experience when games load textures as they go over the crest of a hill.

Source: TechReport
Add your own comment

114 Comments on AMD Charts Path for Future of its GPU Architecture

#1
Wile E
Power User
cadaveca said:
That's one use, to me, and not one that I personally get any use out of. You falsely inflating the possibilities.

As a home user, there's 3D browser acceleration, encoding accelleration, and game physics. Is there more than that for a HOME user? Because that's what I am, right, so that's all I care about.

Which brings me to my point...why do I care? GPGPU doesn't offer me much.
Then AMD's use of APUs is just as useless. It operates on exactly the same principles.
Posted on Reply
#2
cadaveca
My name is Dave
Wile E said:
Then AMD's use of APUs is just as useless. It operates on exactly the same principles.
Currently, for me, it is useless.

Until we get games that take advantage of what's offered, to me, APUs are nothing more than a XBOX360.

I mean, what does sandybridge on Z68 offer? It'll do the same acceleration that discrete cards can, but...that's it?

Unless it offers me a better gaming experience, I don't care.

They can't run CUDA, Intel's SandyBridge and AMD's APUs both, so I don't get any game benefits, such a Phys-X; so why would I be interested?
Posted on Reply
#3
Wile E
Power User
Then why come in here spreading misinformation?
Posted on Reply
#4
cadaveca
My name is Dave
Wile E said:
Then why come in here spreading misinformation?
It's not misinformation. It's my opinion. If CUDA was opened to those other platforms, then there might be reason to be interested, hence it hurting the consumer.

I mean, if there was a real APU with an nVidia GPU, that'd be great, but because alot of these chips are intended for desktops, and is you want better 3D performance than what an AMD APU or SB offers, the AMD APU's paired with an AMD GPU are going to be the very best option, performance wise.

But I can't get Phsy-x on that high-performance option...

We know AMD isn't going ot be there on the software side; it's up to the dev's to decide to implement the technologies, but at the same time, when it comes to gmaing, nV is going to be pushing thier options, and that doesn't help.
Posted on Reply
#5
Wile E
Power User
cadaveca said:
It's not misinformation. It's my opinion. If CUDA was opened to those other platforms, then there might be reason to be interested, hence it hurting the consumer.

I mean, if there was a real APU with an nVidia GPU, that'd be great, but because alot of these chips are intended for desktops, and is you want better 3D performance than what an AMD APU or SB offers, the AMD APU's paired with an AMD GPU are going to be the very best option, performance wise.

But I can't get Phsy-x on that high-performance option...
It is misinformation when without CUDA, we would not have these new APUs, as there would be no interest in this form of computing. CUDA did not hurt consumers, period. It drove an entire market into being, which is producing new open standards. That is the very definition of good for consumers.
Posted on Reply
#6
cadaveca
My name is Dave
Wile E said:
It drove an entire market into being, which is producing new open standards. That is the very definition of good for consumers.
OK, sure. But with AMD's GPUs following closer and closer to nV's solutions, it makes far less sense for nV to restrict thier software to thier chips alone.

THAT doesn't help anyone, but them.
Posted on Reply
#7
Wile E
Power User
cadaveca said:
OK, sure. But with AMD's GPUs following closer and closer to nV's solutions, it makes far less sense for nV to restrict thier software to thier chips alone.

THAT doesn't help anyone, but them.
They are also developing for the open standards, so your point is irrelevant. Sure, it helps only them, but it doesn't hurt anyone in the process.
Posted on Reply
#8
cadaveca
My name is Dave
Wile E said:
so your point is irrelevant
Thanks for your opinion.;)


:laugh:
Posted on Reply
#9
Wile E
Power User
cadaveca said:
Thanks for your opinion.;)


:laugh:
No, it's a fact. CUDA benefiting nV is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. The topic at hand is whether or not it hurts consumers. Benefiting nV does not automatically equal harming consumers. It does not, becasue nV still fully supports the open standards as well.
Posted on Reply
#10
cadaveca
My name is Dave
Wile E said:
The topic at hand is whether or not it hurts consumers
No, actually, the topic is what AMD is doing with thier GPUs.:p I'd like to see them run CUDA, but it's not gonna happen. CUDA sucks.:p
Posted on Reply
#11
Wile E
Power User
cadaveca said:
No, actually, the topic is what AMD is doing with thier GPUs.:p I'd like to see them run CUDA, but it's not gonna happen. CUDA sucks.:p
At least it sucks less than Stream. :D
Posted on Reply
#12
Damn_Smooth
cadaveca said:
Currently, for me, it is useless.

Until we get games that take advantage of what's offered, to me, APUs are nothing more than a XBOX360.

I mean, what does sandybridge on Z68 offer? It'll do the same acceleration that discrete cards can, but...that's it?

Unless it offers me a better gaming experience, I don't care.

They can't run CUDA, Intel's SandyBridge and AMD's APUs both, so I don't get any game benefits, such a Phys-X; so why would I be interested?
Would this be an implementation that you would consider useful?

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/somasegar/archive/2011/06/15/targeting-heterogeneity-with-c-amp-and-ppl.aspx
I’m excited to announce that we are introducing a new technology that helps C++ developers use the GPU for parallel programming. Today at the AMD Fusion Developer Summit, we announced C++ Accelerated Massive Parallelism (C++ AMP). Additionally, I’m happy to say that we intend to make the C++ AMP specification an open specification.
And, forgive my ignorance here, but wouldn't this also render Cuda somewhat obsolete?
Posted on Reply
#14
Damn_Smooth
Wile E said:
That depends solely on what the API is capable of. CUDA as we know it right now will eventually die off for a more hardware independent approach.
I really don't know enough to pretend that I know what I'm talking about yet, so thank's for explaining that to me.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment