Fudzilla
April 21, 2014, 12:35:36 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Fudzilla Forum is open
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Nividia CPU  (Read 4577 times)
bullgodking
Newbie
*
Posts: 7


bullgodking
View Profile
« on: March 01, 2008, 11:46:07 PM »

Nividia has to come up with a cpu to stay in the game, or they will lose alot of their value?
Logged
aznstriker92
Full Member
***
Posts: 151



View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2008, 01:41:39 AM »

Well If they stay strong in their graphics, I don't see a need to but it would'nt be bad for them to start developing a cpu.
Logged

Running a X600 128mb, In need of a new graphics card badly......
Jon
Global Moderator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 234


swallow your pride.

audiofreak39@gmail.com AuDioFreaK39
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2008, 02:22:59 AM »

My guess is that an AMD/Nvidia merge is more than likely to happen within the next year and a half or so.  This would create a market split between Nvidia and Intel, who dominate the consumer market (IBM can be left out of the picture in this scenario), and thus a major stock split would also result from the merge.  I'm looking very forward to the upcoming news between the two companies because this would be too good of an investment to pass up.  Wink
Logged

Core i7 Extreme 965 {} EVGA X58 SLI Classified Limited Edition{} 6GB Mushkin XP Series DDR3 1600MHz 7-8-7-20 {} EVGA GeForce GTX 295 Plus [Quad-SLI] {} Thermalright TRUE Copper
Kakkoii
Newbie
*
Posts: 10



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2008, 02:43:24 AM »

I've always thought Intel And Nvidia merging would be the perfect thing.

 It would be like 2 Sexy Super Model's and 2 Uber Genius's each had a baby together. And then those 2 babies grew up and had a kid together.

 That kid would be named iNviditel. And he would grow to make the most awesome gpu's and cpu's in the word!


(Oh btw, Can anyone explain to me why the Cpu department can make chips that run at 3.7ghz and even higher, while GPU makers still haven't even broken the 1ghz barrier? (Unless you super cool and overclock)
Logged

Live and let be, Don't hope and let wonder.
Jon
Global Moderator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 234


swallow your pride.

audiofreak39@gmail.com AuDioFreaK39
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2008, 04:37:28 AM »

I've always thought Intel And Nvidia merging would be the perfect thing.

 It would be like 2 Sexy Super Model's and 2 Uber Genius's each had a baby together. And then those 2 babies grew up and had a kid together.

 That kid would be named iNviditel. And he would grow to make the most awesome gpu's and cpu's in the word!


(Oh btw, Can anyone explain to me why the Cpu department can make chips that run at 3.7ghz and even higher, while GPU makers still haven't even broken the 1ghz barrier? (Unless you super cool and overclock)

lol we are talking about Nvidia and AMD merging, not Nvidia + Intel - although that would just be insanely cool, but at the same time cause a monopoly in the hardware industry (just like Microsoft did in the software industry).

As for your question of chips that can't run above 3.7GHz - If you've been following along with chip making for, oh, the past 4 years or so, you would realize that they can't do this because the the hardware industry discovered the effectiveness of multiple core CPUs over increases in GHz.  Basically, they realized that having more cores and more efficient architectures would yield much better performance than having higher frequencies.  For example - consider the difference between a Pentium 4 overclocked to 4GHz and a Core 2 Quad overclocked to 3.2GHz.  With as little an explanation as I can give, the quad core chip will yield faster speeds and more efficiency when computing tasks because different threads of the application being processed will be computed on each individual core (all running 3.2GHz each) rather than on a single core where all the computations are placed in a single file line.  lol I know, bad metaphor - I'm tired.  Intel.com has a bunch of resources to explain what they are doing and why it is more efficient in the end run.
Logged

Core i7 Extreme 965 {} EVGA X58 SLI Classified Limited Edition{} 6GB Mushkin XP Series DDR3 1600MHz 7-8-7-20 {} EVGA GeForce GTX 295 Plus [Quad-SLI] {} Thermalright TRUE Copper
Kakkoii
Newbie
*
Posts: 10



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2008, 04:53:32 AM »

I've always thought Intel And Nvidia merging would be the perfect thing.

 It would be like 2 Sexy Super Model's and 2 Uber Genius's each had a baby together. And then those 2 babies grew up and had a kid together.

 That kid would be named iNviditel. And he would grow to make the most awesome gpu's and cpu's in the word!


(Oh btw, Can anyone explain to me why the Cpu department can make chips that run at 3.7ghz and even higher, while GPU makers still haven't even broken the 1ghz barrier? (Unless you super cool and overclock)

lol we are talking about Nvidia and AMD merging, not Nvidia + Intel - although that would just be insanely cool, but at the same time cause a monopoly in the hardware industry (just like Microsoft did in the software industry).

As for your question of chips that can't run above 3.7GHz - If you've been following along with chip making for, oh, the past 4 years or so, you would realize that they can't do this because the the hardware industry discovered the effectiveness of multiple core CPUs over increases in GHz.  Basically, they realized that having more cores and more efficient architectures would yield much better performance than having higher frequencies.  For example - consider the difference between a Pentium 4 overclocked to 4GHz and a Core 2 Quad overclocked to 3.2GHz.  With as little an explanation as I can give, the quad core chip will yield faster speeds and more efficiency when computing tasks because different threads of the application being processed will be computed on each individual core (all running 3.2GHz each) rather than on a single core where all the computations are placed in a single file line.  lol I know, bad metaphor - I'm tired.  Intel.com has a bunch of resources to explain what they are doing and why it is more efficient in the end run.
Yeah, I was just stating something on the subject of companies merging lol. I would rather have Nvidia and Intel merge.

 Cause if AMD and NVidia merged.. Then most likely ATI will merge with it. Then there wouldn't really be anymore graphics card competition.


 I wasn't talking about CPU's not going past 3.7.
Read my paragraph over again a little slower XD. I'll bold the part you might have missed.

"Can anyone explain to me why the Cpu department can make chips that run at 3.7ghz and even higher, while GPU makers still haven't even broken the 1ghz barrier? (Unless you super cool and overclock)"

I'll explain it further...

 With the technology we have now for building such fast CPU's. Why can't we build GPU's that are anywhere near as fast? 
« Last Edit: March 02, 2008, 04:59:14 AM by Kakkoii » Logged

Live and let be, Don't hope and let wonder.
Kakkoii
Newbie
*
Posts: 10



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2008, 04:54:29 AM »

omg.. I'm getting pissed with this forum lol.. Second time i've quoted instead of modify.
Logged

Live and let be, Don't hope and let wonder.
aznstriker92
Full Member
***
Posts: 151



View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2008, 05:56:00 AM »

I've always thought Intel And Nvidia merging would be the perfect thing.

 It would be like 2 Sexy Super Model's and 2 Uber Genius's each had a baby together. And then those 2 babies grew up and had a kid together.

 That kid would be named iNviditel. And he would grow to make the most awesome gpu's and cpu's in the word!


(Oh btw, Can anyone explain to me why the Cpu department can make chips that run at 3.7ghz and even higher, while GPU makers still haven't even broken the 1ghz barrier? (Unless you super cool and overclock)

lol we are talking about Nvidia and AMD merging, not Nvidia + Intel - although that would just be insanely cool, but at the same time cause a monopoly in the hardware industry (just like Microsoft did in the software industry).

As for your question of chips that can't run above 3.7GHz - If you've been following along with chip making for, oh, the past 4 years or so, you would realize that they can't do this because the the hardware industry discovered the effectiveness of multiple core CPUs over increases in GHz.  Basically, they realized that having more cores and more efficient architectures would yield much better performance than having higher frequencies.  For example - consider the difference between a Pentium 4 overclocked to 4GHz and a Core 2 Quad overclocked to 3.2GHz.  With as little an explanation as I can give, the quad core chip will yield faster speeds and more efficiency when computing tasks because different threads of the application being processed will be computed on each individual core (all running 3.2GHz each) rather than on a single core where all the computations are placed in a single file line.  lol I know, bad metaphor - I'm tired.  Intel.com has a bunch of resources to explain what they are doing and why it is more efficient in the end run.
Ahh I doubt a nvidia/amd merge will happen if AMD holds on to ATI.
Logged

Running a X600 128mb, In need of a new graphics card badly......
Jon
Global Moderator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 234


swallow your pride.

audiofreak39@gmail.com AuDioFreaK39
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2008, 06:34:51 AM »

With the technology we have now for building such fast CPU's. Why can't we build GPU's that are anywhere near as fast? 

two words:  parallel processing

GPUs are much much more advanced than CPUs are right now.  Consider Nvidia's attempt to bring it's supercomputers into the world's top 5 list of supercomputing machines (right up next to the IBM BlueGene/L).  GPUs have a much more efficient architecture at computing tasks - notice how they are preferred over CPUs in Folding@home and many medical research facilities.
Logged

Core i7 Extreme 965 {} EVGA X58 SLI Classified Limited Edition{} 6GB Mushkin XP Series DDR3 1600MHz 7-8-7-20 {} EVGA GeForce GTX 295 Plus [Quad-SLI] {} Thermalright TRUE Copper
Kakkoii
Newbie
*
Posts: 10



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2008, 07:06:48 AM »

Ahh...

 Well they need to hurry up and shrink the size 3x so we can have 3ghz!!!!! XD
Logged

Live and let be, Don't hope and let wonder.
punoesam
Newbie
*
Posts: 4


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 02, 2008, 07:08:03 AM »

i think the main reason is power draw by internal structure. if you compare chip design of cpu dan gpu the main different is cpu built on complex part, alu, fpu, data/instr ctrl, sse, cache, etc that very different structure each other so each part take different power too. with carefull trim of design each part, can help reduce total power and raise clock. gpu is massive pararel design. most structure of gpu is the same too. so if one part has take amount power, all part will be same too. so you can only have limited trims of gpu power   structure. dont forget about wide memory line, that take much power too. so the real challenge of gpu design is make pararel part (shader engine mostly), draw power as little as possible to make sure they can put pararel part as much as possible because its straigh related to performance.

btw, shader engine on nvidia has break 1 GHz limit.... now its nearly 2 GHz  Wink, that's clever design make ati failed with their massive shader engine in real game performance.
Logged
aznstriker92
Full Member
***
Posts: 151



View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: March 02, 2008, 08:06:53 PM »

Yeah you'll bet ATI will increase the shader clocks in the R700
Logged

Running a X600 128mb, In need of a new graphics card badly......
Jon
Global Moderator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 234


swallow your pride.

audiofreak39@gmail.com AuDioFreaK39
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2008, 10:04:16 PM »

Yeah you'll bet ATI will increase the shader clocks in the R700

And to do this, they'll probably get rid of a few ROPs like Nvidia did to allow for those higher shader clocks.
Logged

Core i7 Extreme 965 {} EVGA X58 SLI Classified Limited Edition{} 6GB Mushkin XP Series DDR3 1600MHz 7-8-7-20 {} EVGA GeForce GTX 295 Plus [Quad-SLI] {} Thermalright TRUE Copper
aznstriker92
Full Member
***
Posts: 151



View Profile Email
« Reply #13 on: March 02, 2008, 10:43:00 PM »

Yeah you'll bet ATI will increase the shader clocks in the R700

And to do this, they'll probably get rid of a few ROPs like Nvidia did to allow for those higher shader clocks.
Yeah and they are finally put some more tmu's in there.
Logged

Running a X600 128mb, In need of a new graphics card badly......
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!