2011: AMD releases details on FUSION

AMD recently announced their FUSION with Accelerated Processing Unit for 2011.

Same level of performance in DX11 with last year's high end discrete GPU from AMD in a netbook

This is a single die available in two flavors. One Quad, other dual core
- This is essentially a CPU, Chipset and DX11 capable all on one chip.

Massively Parallel Processing Capability never seen before in a notebook

32nm architecture, the Quad version will be manufactured by Global Foundry. The Dual Core manufacturing has not been announced yet (rumor TSMC @ 40nm)
- The Quad version will be available for high end notebooks

AMD demonstrated a dual core version that will be made for "NETBOOKS" running Alien v Predator in full DX11!
- Quote of the announcement my opinion is. “Can you imagine getting performance of that quality in a netbook this size?”

Computex 2010: AMD demonstrates Fusion APUs | ZDNet

I hope this is awesome as it sounds. Truly an incredible solution for notebooks if that is the case!

This video shows in real time, the low power version of FUSION that will be available for netbooks with DX11 in AvP. The dual-core low power
- The Browser Flip demonstration blew me away
- Remember this is the LOW POWER, imagine the high end Quad with 32nm architecture!

width='480' height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dxACIcqXBRo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dxACIcqXBRo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width='480' height="385"></embed></object>

Browser Flip, I get 4 FPS or so
You try

Browser Flip

 

Wow.

Although I don't know how you're getting 4FPS..I'm getting around 50 on my FW

 

I'm guessing you are using FireFox? FireFox has software acceleration. That demonstration was hardware only.

Try the browser flip in Explorer or Chrome.

 

Ahh gotcha. Now 4 seems about right

 

wow i was getting like 6 fps on my desktop i think ill wait for fusion before i get a new notebook

 

I got a steady 60 FPS and i was using firefox

Edit: i did it again and this time i got like 20 :/

 

Try IE, it'll be a big difference

 

Install the IE 9 preview and you should get a steady 60FPS.

In the video, they Alt+Tabbed.

The green button: Internet Explorer 9: Platform Demos

 

:laugh: There is a saying that translates to roughly "The smart will not walk up a mountain when they can circumvent the mountain".

In any case, this has been rumored for quite some time and I am glad it still looks like it's true. It's really too bad we can't have Intel's superior CPUs and AMD's superior IGPs on the same die.

 

Ok I read some more on this.

You are right it's using the IE9 preview. But without APU support and then with. So it seems to have been modified IE9. Which is why the video for IE9 performs a lot different on my computer.

So I don't think this will destroy the best Intel and Nvidia combination.

My hope for this is that we will finally have desktop performance in a notebook that is thin and light with great battery life. We won't have to sacrifice size, weight and battery life anymore. Hmm maybe I'm starting to dream, well hope the reality matches my notebook dream.

 

Seriously.. Look at the video, the status bar and the bars at the top of the screen change.

In the status bar:
In the first slow browser, there is the world icon and the text 'internet'.
In the second fast browser, there is the flickering text 'Mode: IE 9]'.

 

Aww why did I read this thread. I was already more than happy with the new asus netbooks with nvidia ION, this news makes me want to postpone my purchase even further. Perhaps if I hold on for one more year, using pen and paper, i'll finaly be rewarded with a netbook which I can use to play COD7 during class.

 

What do you mean? How does it perform? My Intel 4500MHD got ~50FPS and GeForce 9600M GT got ~60FPS.

<s>Also, I didn't notice until just then, but the latest Chromium has hardware support as well.</s> edit: performance just seems to be optimized compared to the older version.

 

Wow, sharp eyes. Sneaky, sneaky AMD. I suppose they weren't lying -- the acceleration has the effect they describe -- but they failed to mention that even today's IGPs can trivially get that kind of performance.

 

Well, I don't expect much from it, AMD is always a step behind Intel, I would say it's just the AMD version of intel's arrandale with integrated graphics. DX11 capable != high performance, being able to use DX11 and having high performance is totally different story.

Made for netbooks to have some decent web graphics acceleration yes, made for performance notebooks? Nope. You can't just increase the integrated GPU performance just because you increased the TDP on the CPU.

 

Right. I just think if it can run AvP at least it's significantly better than the integrated GPU in the Arrandale's. I wouldn't expect GTX 280m type performance or anything, but anything that would allow you to game decently without the need for a dedicated GPU.

I always felt that the Intel GPU's were way underpowered for what they could actually accomplish with similar TDP and cost.

 

1. Fusion was announced long before Arrandale, AMD's not "copying" Intel.
2. If you think AMD is "always" a step behind Intel, clearly you've blocked the entire period from 2000-2006 out of your memory. Not that anyone would blame you for doing so.

 

You're short sighted. This is not just adding the IGP to the CPU die it's about the gradual change of how processing will work in the future.

In the big picture AMD's ahead of the game.

The mainstream quad-core Llanos APU will have more Evergreen Stream Processors than a Mob. HD5600/5700 at a maximum TDP of 50w.



PC Perspective - Computex 2010: AMD Fusion APUs to be built at both GlobalFoundries and TSMC

AMD Reveals More Llano Details at ISSCC: 32nm, Power Gating, 4-cores, Turbo? - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

AMD Displays Llano Die: 4 x86 Cores, 480 Stream Processors - X-bit labs

 

2000-2006 is so long ago in IT terms... Yes not always, but such a long period of time is almost like "always" in IT terms. Macs are not "always" behind PC as well since they are more powerful for some time long ago...

For the quad core APUs, that's why I said decent graphics performance in netbooks - yes. Because 5600/5700M are mostly rather weak GPUs as well. Moreover, just having the stream processors also don't mean having the same performance, since in the memory area it will be bottlenecked by the integrated architecture.

 

In the grand scheme of things, a 400 SP part like the mobile 56xx Radeon is quite a bit of graphics power, especially when you compare it to the 360 and PS3 as well as what the average GPU computers have these days. Not everyone has a graphics card, and not everyone has a high end GPU. Also like mentioned before, it's not about on board graphical power, it's about having new hardware readily there as a standard platform for developers and coders to take advantage of for processes that benefit from vector/SIMD processing. Yes, that includes graphics, but so many other things.

If the Ontario Fusion APUs that are for netbooks have even only 100 SPs + the two x86 CPU cores, the "game" will be changed significantly, especially for what is expected for a netbook, assuming it allows for efficient battery life, good thermal qualities, and is affordable for consumers.

 

For me

The most important thing here is that with an on board GPU equivalent of a 56xx series it can lead developers to have a higher standard when making games.

Maybe even facebook games will have to use this technology to create more visually enchanting games.

Oh I am planning to upgrade to this Llano once it is released

 

I will if it's drop-in Socket AM3 compatible.

 

Didnt they say that Llano or was it Bulldozer will be AM3 compatible?

890 MoBo is AM3 right??? They said that "that" MoBo is Bulldozer or Llano compatible.

 

Only if AMD can sell a lot of these things or Intel's Sandy Bridge solution is of comparable power. AMD's current laptop market share is currently around 12.1% and they have a deserved reputation for making inferior CPUs (slower, hotter, more power hungry) the sole virtue of which is their low price. Ever since Intel ditched the mobile P4, AMD just didn't have any competitive CPU in the laptop market.

In fact, Llano does not change that: the CPU it will use is the 32nm die shrink of the Athlon IIs (i.e. like the Phenom IIs, but still no L3 cache). These are low end even today -- the Arrandales not only crush them thread for thread, but a dual-core Arrandale is actually competitive with a quad-core Athlon II. I'm sure going to 32nm will allow AMD to increase the clock speeds and make some other improvements, but I very much doubt it will be competitive with Sandy Bridge. Thus, AMD is going to have to make the sell based on better integrated graphics (they've been doing this for a long time and it has never worked for them before), lower prices (as usual) or pray that their Fusion marketing thing works (even though Intel did it first).

 

AMD just like to tease everyone with awesome new hardware, then wait a long time before releasing actual hardware to the public.

 

Seems people have misunderstood or missed the concept behind FUSION or else wouldn't be saying intel has already done it.

This is CPU, Chipset and GPU into one unified chip. This is about using the CPU and GPU in parallel processing.

Maybe some need to look up the definition for Fusion, that may help. This is being labled by AMD as a Accelerated Processing Unit.

AMD now has a fund for developers interesting in creating application or improving applications to use APU. This is entirely different from what both Intel or Nvidia offers.

 

The concept of Fusion, just like the concept of Sandy Bridge, is to have the CPU and GPU on the same die. I am 95% certain Sandy Bridge will be out before Llano.

I think it would be healthier for you if you stopped drinking AMD's Kool-Aid for a while. Both Intel and AMD are putting the CPU and GPU on the same die (Arrandale has the GPU on the CPU package, but they're not quite merged yet). This does not make using GPUs to assist with parallel processing any easier -- Fusion and APU are just marketing. Llano will be able to do what the Evergreens paired with an Athlon II do, no more and no less. Intel is doing exactly the same thing with Sandy Bridge, only their CPUs are better and their GPUs are worse.

 

Lol if this goes well and laptops get Fusion, will it be the end of mobile GPUs? :O I mean, parallel computations between CPU and GPU on 1 die? Hell that would have great performance, though I might question the heat of the APU, Do you think the die would have stable heat doing all that work?

 

CPU+GPU=APU. That is what AMD is now calling it. So Fusion and Sandy Bridge are APU's, Advanced Processing Units. I am more excited for the Bulldozer version, since LLano is just the current Phenom core+5000 series graphics, and current Phenom cpu's are that fast.

 

Still not getting the concept. The only way for Intel right now to compete with AMD's FUSION is to continue their Larrabee project which they said will not do so. That's what this would be, an Intel Quad + Larrabbee. As of yet, then, the only way is for Intel and Nvidia to combine. And this is not happening as it seems Intel is quite unhappy with Nvidia and their CUDA B.S.

And there is no way Nvidia will be acquiring license for x86 anytime soon.

Do you have trouble reading? No it's not the same. The Sandy Bridge is just an improved Arrendale. It's still just a CPU with their typical integrated GPU on the same die. It will have an improved advanced SSE.

FUSION is about parallel processing between GPU and CPU so they behave as one unit. This will be taking advantage of the immense computational power of AMD Stream Processors along with the CPU. This is NOT the same as Intel's offering.

Sandy Bridge still has GPU and CPU fuction separately but on the same die and not only that, the GPU blows.

No I do not think so. AMD solution is as you said, an Advanced Processing Unit. The Sandy Bridge as I said above an improved Arrendale. There is no evidence as of yet that this will be parallel processing between GPU and CPU. Heck the low end to midrange Sandy Bridge won't even have any GPU Core processors. Their top of the line will have 6-12...

 

As of yet have not read anything about any software development changes to use the Sandy Bridge.

To take advantage of this NEW CONCEPT, AMD is providing funding for developers who want to take advantage of GPU CPU parallel processing in their new or current applications.

AMD Fusion Fund Program

 

I've got to give credit to AMD for marketing skill.

 

Not quite. Arrandale has a 45nm GPU sitting on the same package as a 32nm CPU. Sandy Bridge and Llano will have monolithic 32nm dies that contain both a CPU and a GPU.

Parallel processing of what? What will this do differently from Sandy Bridge or today's CPU + discreet GPU solutions? How will the GPU help the CPU in ways that are different from current hardware acceleration?

 

Discussion is impossible if you can't read or understand what's actually written, not what you want to read. It's pointless.

For those who are capable of reading and comprehension, this is a nice thread with good discussions.
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33964200

 

The A in APU stands for Accelerated not Advanced.

 

:laugh: What do you think these developers are going to do? They're going to be writing code that can make use of a graphics card to run faster (like that Microsoft browser test linked earlier in the thread and the latest version of Flash), probably via OpenCL, but perhaps AMD has something proprietary in mind. If it is OpenCL, you will be able to use all graphics processors from Intel, AMD and Nvidia to accelerate them. If it is something proprietary (like PhysX and CUDA are for Nvidia), it will only work with AMD.

In either case, there is nothing new here except the fact that the GPU is on the same die. If a program is not designed for making use of a GPU, it will have the same performance on Llano as it would on an Athlon II.

No, discussion is impossible with people who do nothing except repeat marketing without addressing any of the specifics.

 

ziddy123: From what I can see, the Fusion concept comprises of-

First, GPU and CPU on the same die - supposedly faster communication between the both of them, and possible power savings or something.

Second, it requires software implementation like OpenCL, DirectCompute.
The software we already have.

edit: ninja'd by Althernai, but I believe we make the same point.

 

I think it's more than just faster communication. If it was faster communication, then AMD would have just developed for that. AMD has made it clear that acquiring ATi is about FUSION, and this is the reason why they have invested so heavily in ATi. Instead of what you said, AMD is looking to COMBINE the power of both as one. Now if you are going to ask me more technical questions, I don't know why you would. Do I look like an AMD engineer? I'm just excited by what AMD is looking to offer us and see no reason in doing so.

Want to downplay how awesome this concept really is, go ahead. I don't have any applications right now that truly uses the potential of my CPU and especially the stream processors on my GPU. So what AMD is doing is good for all.

Like you said they will need software implementations through OpenCL, DirectCompute etc. But because these are already available and open systems, this is good for all and hopefully we will soon better software that take advantage of the new technologies across the board, not just Fusion. If AMD can get this type of development rolling, we should see excellent gains hopefully in any dual core, quad + DX11 combinations.

Fusion is the future? I'm sold. I don't see this endeavor being an AMD marketing ploy but an effort to improve software support for the incredible new technologies we have today. And I'm done, as there are just too many negatives in this thread to even try and attempt any sort of conversations.

 

Not yet (there are still a few problems), but hopefully within a few of years. If Intel and AMD can make the on-die GPUs as good as the consoles (this is a reasonably low standard), the GPUs -- both desktop and mobile -- will go the way of sound cards: enthusiasts will still buy them, but the majority will be quite satisfied with the integrated solutions.

Sure, with enough die shrinks. AMD's Evergreens (5000 series) are already fairly efficient at 40nm. If they shrink them to 32nm and do some more optimization, they can probably knock the TDP even further down. Also, keep in mind that the integrated solutions probably won't have any VRAM of their own; they'll use system RAM and that means quite a bit less heat.

 

The biggest advantage is having a higher standard of on board graphics capability on the CPU die that is not only graphics capable, but worth a flip for other things that are otherwise better suited to the highly parallel environment of a GPU. Scalar architecture isn't as well suited to our highly media centric computing environment and interface. No, it's that it's defunct or anything (anything but!) but certain types of programming are better suited to GPUs. This whole issue isn't too dissimilar to the standard integration of Floating Point Units onto CPUs. It was a feature deemed necessary for future computing, and it made alot of sense to integrate it onto the CPU die. Via Fusion, AMD can really push itself forward as being a media centric company, more so than Intel's current bunch of CPUs, which while much more powerful in many regard, wouldn't be able to hold a candle to what could be done on a proper modern GPU.

Other advantages:
1. Price. A single processing die with 4 Phenom II cores + 400 or so Stream Processors & other graphics hardware is cheaper to manufacture than a separate Phenom II x4 CPUs and Radeon 55xx/56xx GPU, not to mention the cost of the graphics board itself, as well as it's memory and memory interconnects.

2. Energy Savings. One chip to handle the functions means no wasted electricity via two sets of memory (SRAM and VRAM) as well as two memory buses, and intercommunication devices. This is a big part of why Fusion is exciting for the laptop market. High performance at probably half the energy cost of separate CPU + GPU and memory systems.

3. Heat management. One chip that is the primary source of heat, that is easier to manage and cool.

4. Fusion could become a standard solution to the CPU/GPU function and usage, encouraging further development in computing. Adoption is a barrier, and Fusion can make adoption quick by providing decent graphics and GPGPU capability to the masses.

Disadvantages:
1. Possibly too many different lines of product. This can happen with any line of processors, but it could get tricky here. We could have APUs with 4 x86 Cores with any number of Stream Processors, or the other way around, unless DAAMIT specifically tries to stick to a ratio (100 SPs for every x86 core makes alot of sense to me) or a standard number of SPs in a specific product line. Most people are already pretty illiterate in this regard, and Fusion could worsen that, making people forgo considering AMD, choosing to go for Intel which they are more likely to understand.

2. Memory bandwidth! I can never say it enough. If AMD wants to push graphics capabilities, they need to push the available bandwidth between the APU and memory. This does make it possible to standardize faster available DDR3 speeds, and cheapen the price of higher speed DDR3 memory which would be a win for consumers who wait to adopt.

3. We could see less options (most especially with laptops) in terms of dedicated graphics. While Fusion isn't meant to be top of the line, it may be enough for manufacturers to not offer dedicated graphics anymore instead for faster Fusion APUs, at possibly substantial cost when you only want more graphics performance (see disadvantage #1). Instead of paying an extra $100 for a high end MXM dedicated graphics card, OEMs could opt out to have the consumer pay instead for a $150 APU that has the graphical power we want, but have to pay for the enhanced CPU capability, even if we may not need it. This is under the assumption that the $150 APU is more profitable to sell as an upgrade as opposed to the $100 MXM board.

 

Other than gaming, most consumer-level applications that can make use a GPU (and there are not many) do not use discreet GPUs to anywhere near their full potential. Right now, even modern integrated graphics are adequate for such purposes and I suspect they will remain adequate for the next 3 years or so.

Unless they radically alter the way RAM is accessed, this is currently a lost cause. You will never reach GDDR5 rates with DDR3 -- Phenom IIs can manage about 13-14GB/s and I don't think Llano will be much better than that. If you take into account that the CPU and GPU specific parts of the chip will be simultaneously trying to access the same RAM, the picture gets even worse.

 

The main issue has been lack of standardization, I'd say. Now that OpenCL and DirectCompute are making an entrance, a lot more applications that could make use of GPU power will do so. Still, you're right in that it will likely still take a couple of years.

 

Yeah the APU could really use a feature like sideport memory.

A 128bit bank of GDDR5 off to the side perhaps?

 

I don't believe that's possible since the CPU and GPU parts of the entire chip are using the same memory controller(s) and the same pool of RAM. Previous and current ATi IGPs are seperate from the CPU and can do something like sideport, and most low end current dedicated graphics and older laptops with dedicated graphics hardware are not that much different in design. The GPU is built onto the motherboard with dedicated VRAM connected to it.

 

Oh it would require a second memory controller and GPU memory calls to be flagged differently so it could be done.

Otherwise a tripple or quad channel traditional memory controller.