According to reports around the web, Intel has been working on an integrated CPU/GPU solution. The chip, code named "Lincroft" it part of the Moorestown platform. Lincroft will initially be developed for Ultra Mobile PCs, but according to an unverified roadmap, Lincroft with its core logic unit, Silverthorne, will eventually filter its way to consumer electronics, OCLP and embedded netwok devices. I have seen no mention of forays into the DT or normal mobile markets yet, but with developement of this technology for both the ultra mobile and OCLP, the segue should be easy enough. With Intel already working on the EP80579, a highly intergrated Pentium M and working to expand its graphics interests, is it a question of 'if' or a question of 'when' will Intel attack mobile? And should they choose to attack mobile, which seemingly they will, how long might it be before they take the next step to DT? If so, AMD will find itself in yet another race.

mydigitallife
TheRegister
Engaget

isn't AMD's version of this actually called "fusion"?

^Yup. But I have yet to see a definative date for AMDs Fusion. I know Intel has plans for a SoC using Nehalem but it will probably be targeted at the mobile market for laptops since it will allow for cheaper laptops.

As for this it would be interesting to see who gets where first and hopefully AMD is smart enough to tae thier time instead of trying to beat Intel to the market. I would prefer a well worked on product over a first version any day.

^ I think intel is doing it with sandy bridge

I hear sandy bridge blows a**... at least in desktops... with mobile it is probably going to rock but I think sandy bridge is just an integrated graphics chip into westmere

I think the "forays into the DT or normal mobile markets" will be coming with Larrabee. Intel hinted at the possibilites at the last IDF, and hopefully will expound at either Siggraph 2008 (August 12 - 14th) or at IDF (Aug 19 - 21st).

As for AMD, I've only seen generalizations. They may well wait for Intel to spend the money on creating the market first.

Well, Intel seems to be approaching from markets that already exist, UMPC and consumer. As far as the other markets, I think there may already be a demand in mobile (laptop) IF whatever they were to produce were to provide a cost/power savings to the consumer.

Laptop sales have taken over desktops already...

Laptop stuff is normally more efficient than desktop stuff...

See: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] i=3361&p=2

I'm reading it now...

Yeah ... Intel's graphics chips are really great little performers too.

They totally rock !!!

And their drivers historically have been so much better than either Nvidia and AMD.

I am surprised those other two companies even bother trying to compete in the graphics part of the market.

Really ... is there no end to the bull$hit ??

With the Puma mobile platform AMD has taken a significant 'architectural' step toward Fusion. How this translates in a race with Intel, who knows? Intel spends more on R&D than AMD makes each year.

It seems logical to me that the next level for Puma (1H09?) has the potential to move a graphics core on to the cpu die but I am certain that step is more difficult than we can imagine.

AMD has 'split' the cores on the die and Puma splits the core power planes. So now each element (cpu cores, IMC, HT & memory) has independent timing and power.

I'm not sure where Intel stands with the Cantiga/Montevina chipsets. Last I heard Intel will not release a Centrino2 chipset initially with Intel integrated graphics (like the mobile version of the G45).

Your sig really makes it hard to take you seriously. What are you asking? AMD is already working on Fusion for low-priced notebooks. It would probably fit right into HTPCs also. In answer to your question, everything is a race when they are two people racing.

I guess AMDs biggest challenge is the MCM packaging as the CPU is SOI and the GPU (thus far) is not. Intel's biggest challenge is making graphics faster than a retarded kid with a box of crayons.

LOL

Anyways, I always find that Intel tends to be behind AMD on a lot of technology, but then picks it up and kicks the crap out of AMD. Also, I'm pretty sure that AMD started the whole integrated CPU/GPU, or atleast I heard about it from AMD way before Intel. Either way, I'll be pretty interested on the chip layout of these things as to whether they are CPU/GPU stuck together, have say one modded core in a quad core, or something of the sort.

^There have been many iterations of a SoC from Intel. Timna is one example. And I believe that both Intel and AMD have been planing their SoC for a while and its hard to say which was first.

While it doesn't matter who was first it matters who has better implimentation of the technology.

You're totally wrong. If that was the case AMD would have 40% of the market right now. It depends on whether Inhell is on their period and threatening OEMs with higher chipset prices or less chipsets. Newegg has only 5 Puma systems and at least one retailer advertised a 17" Toshiba and then removed it.(www.jr.com)

I just hope that people realize they can get a Turion for a little more than a EeePC which is not even in the same league. I mean, would you rather have a 8.9" screen with less than 20GB of space or a 15" screen with close to 200GB? Some people will say "it's just for web-surfing" but how does a 1280 page look on a 8" screen?

Ehhhh, never mind.

^Um AMD did get almost 40% of the market. But then Core 2 came out and outperformed X2 and Intel can easily manufacture enough CPUs to meet demand where as AMD instead of building more fabs to help meet demand bought ATI.

AMD had major major demand when X2 was on top and charged more for it. But they were not able to meet demand and when smaller OEM companies wanted chips AMD said they had none and tried to get them with the bigger OEMs. Seriously though AMD was doing great and the IMC still keeps them at the top of the server market but desktop wise the IMC doesn't make up enough.

As for my statement, its true. A company can have something first but its who impliments it better and of course gets it out there.

I am also sure that people are unaware that you can also get a nice Intel laptop for even less. And the EeePC is a Asus thing. Nothing to do with Intel.