CPU with integrated GPU by AMD

[Bokishi]

But its just using a Radeon X1250

 

http://www.trustedreviews.com/graphics/new...o-The-Masses/p1

[Gfted1]

What would be the advantage of an integrated GPU? Seems to me, unless there is some kind of performance boost to that architecture, that its a bad move for users as you cant update one without updating both.

[taks]

the same advantage as an integrated floating point coprocessor (FPU) in every processor you can imagine: no external bus required. i agree, however, that there's not a lot of consumer advantage at the moment, but that's only because nobody else is doing it. for mid to low end systems, i can see this as a solid benefit. not everyone cares about blazing graphics speed. they'd rather simply buy an "all in one" system that does the standard everday computing. i would prefer a fully integrated system for my son, for example, since he's not doing anything intensive. unfortunately, the integrated sound on his board sucks, and there's no integrated video. as a result, i have two extra cards i have to worry about that i'd rather not deal with.

 

taks

[Wistrik]

A Core2 Duo with integrated 8800GTX would be something I'd consider, but not this.

[taks]

yeah, but you're a gamer.

 

i don't think they're saying the GPU is integrated into the CPU, btw. rather, it reads (to me) like they've integrated it into the chipset. the last AMD chipset mobo i had died rather quickly.

 

taks

[Deraldin]

yeah, but you're a gamer.

 

Exactly. From what I gather this isn't going after people who actually have a graphics card. It's more to compete with the Intel integrated lines for the low end systems.

[taks]

agreed. that's the point i was trying to make in my first post above. i think it's a great idea for general use computers.

 

btw, even the integrated FPU was criticized when companies first started doing it. the line of thought was that nearly all processing can be performed with an integer pipeline (like 99% actually), so adding on a co-processor that doubles the power requirement of the chip is not cost-effective. even Sun's new high-end processor has wimpy floating point capabilities (i evaluated it for the system i used to work on... took 5 minutes to rule it out).

 

taks

[samm]

i don't think they're saying the GPU is integrated into the CPU, btw. rather, it reads (to me) like they've integrated it into the chipset. the last AMD chipset mobo i had died rather quickly.

Firstly, you are correct: It is of course a chipset with integrated gfx-solution. I don't know how people interested in HW could confuse that with a CPU/GPU-combo... Secondly, this is an ATI-chipset, devolopment has likely begun before the AMD/ATI-merger - that's just an assumption and I can't cite any sources on this. ATI's chipsets have a reputation of using little power while being stable, AMD hasn't done any chipsets for quite a while now.

 

Integrated grafics are always sub-par, again, I don't know how HW-interested gamers would even bother talking about this chipset. Integrated graphics-hardware is just like integrated sound-hw (except Audigy): it's no good if you have any expectations of something special. The x1250 is good enough to play FarCry, which is an old game, but still more than previous integrated graphics could handle. So: if you're an Office/Internet-User and want to play some UT on 800x600 once every week, this is the chipset for you and you don't need anything additional (except CPU, RAM, HDD etc ). Otherwise, buy a normal graphics-card just as you would do with any other mainboard, disable onboard-gfx and you're fine...

Edited March 3, 2007 by samm

[taks]

which would sort of be a waste to do...

 

the last AMD chipset i had was the 761 and i do recall that it worked well, but it failed quickly.

 

taks

[kalimeeri]

IIRC when AMD originally announced this after acquiring ATI, they said their main focus would be toward smaller hand-held devices and corporate workstations. In that context integration would make sense (but that's not the impression I get from the link). If this goes mainstream, I would expect the graphics portion would suffer the same fate as onboard sound does, at least in any machine I own. Unused, disabled, waste of real estate.

[taks]

i've used onboard sound on occasion, though it never measures up to even a low-level sound card. i tried it with my son's latest mobo, but it sucked (volume was a whisper). he ended up getting my otherwise retired SB Live! value card. my wife is using onboard sound, AC 97 i think. it works fine for her use. personally, i like decent sound and i have the 5.1 logitech speakers coupled with an audigy gamer sound card.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

i've used onboard sound on occasion, though it never measures up to even a low-level sound card. i tried it with my son's latest mobo, but it sucked (volume was a whisper). he ended up getting my otherwise retired SB Live! value card. my wife is using onboard sound, AC 97 i think. it works fine for her use. personally, i like decent sound and i have the 5.1 logitech speakers coupled with an audigy gamer sound card.

 

taks

 

That isn't necessarily true anymore. My mobo for my Core 2 Duo is supporting dolby digital 5.1 Live (@96kHz), which works pretty good with a standard digital reciever (which i have) and a set regular 5.1 speakers (which i also have). When playing Oblivion, i can even say that my onboard HD audio works better than the Audigy card that i have for safekeep. I didn't notice any framerate-drops either with DD Live enabled.

 

AMD mobo's should support this feature as well. There's even mobo's with DTS NEO-PC (6.1 digital @192kHz) and Dolby Pro-logic IIx (7.1 digital @192kHz) for the enthusiasts out there.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Meshugger

[Diamond]

I have a P5W DH and on-board soundcard (5.1 and all that jazz) blows (well, I didn't know it until I've got Audigy and Sennheiser headphones). Same as taks, signal is really weak.

 

Can't hear big difference on speakers, probably because of the amp.

Edited March 6, 2007 by Diamond

[Meshugger]

I have a P5W DH and on-board soundcard (5.1 and all that jazz) blows (well, I didn't know it until I've got Audigy and Sennheiser headphones). Same as taks, signal is really weak.

 

Can't hear big difference on speakers, probably because of the amp.

 

There could be several reasons on why it blows. I've noticed that earlier drivers for the RealTek HD audio device can vary, some drivers even lacked EAX support, get the newest ones if that helps. Another reason could be the amp, have you tried playing with DD enabled through a digital cable? And finally, i have never tried playing with headphones, since i prefer a full 5.1 system instead. There might be some problems with Realtek and headphone settings.

 

But that doesn't matter really, since previously with the AC '97-standard, it often meant that the onboard is doo-doo compared to any dedicated soundcard. For my part, it's the first time the onboard blows the Audigy out of the water IMHO.

[Diamond]

Really? From what I read, Intel HDA (while a big improvement over AC'97) is still lagging behind midrange to high-end dedicated sound cards.

[Meshugger]

Really? From what I read, Intel HDA (while a big improvement over AC'97) is still lagging behind midrange to high-end dedicated sound cards.

 

I think i can sum it up like this:

 

1) If your amp has a digital input and a supports DD/DTS decoding, go with Intel's HD Audio, since it support DD/DTS-encoding on the fly, which the Audigy does not. HTPC enthusiasts love this feature. Many claim that that feature alone makes it superior to the Audigy. Every game, every .mp3 and movie is heard through 5.1, pretty nice actually.

2) For gaming, go with the Audigy, it supports EAX 4, HD Audio only supports EAX 2.

3) For sound quality, Intel HD Audio is generally(this is a bit difficult, because of the sheer amount of different HD audio codecs by different manufactures) at par with the Audigy, but the X-Fi is still the king.

[samm]

1) If your amp has a digital input and a supports DD/DTS decoding, go with Intel's HD Audio, since it support DD/DTS-encoding on the fly, which the Audigy does not. HTPC enthusiasts love this feature. Many claim that that feature alone makes it superior to the Audigy. Every game, every .mp3 and movie is heard through 5.1, pretty nice actually.

If it's really encoding the mp3's again, then there's a quality loss. Furthermore, that's a feature the audigy does have, too: CMSS, I think it's called there. If you have a nice piece of 5.1 speakers like the logitech z5500, you can activate thoughput (directly output the unmodified digital stream to the speakers to decode - supported by the audigy too), and they will do the job of spreading the sound to the speakers with various dolby-features.

Conclusion: There's always something better than onboard sound (just my guess, haven't listend to intel's new solutions)

Edited March 8, 2007 by samm

[Meshugger]

Unless you have some very expensive equipment, the loss of DD/DTS is negligible for the common user. For example, someone with a standard Creative or Logitech speakers will not hear the difference. And also, i have tried CMSS, but its separation for the speakers aren't as good as native 5.1 that DD/DTS supports IMO

[taks]

DTS-HD and DD-HD are lossless.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

DTS-HD and DD-HD are lossless.

 

taks

 

Too bad that there aren't any card that support those formats yet. Only the PS3 supports DD-HD as far as i know.

[taks]

bummer. the loss in regular methods is not noticeable anyway... but still.

 

taks