Many consumers would prefer the dedicated GPU for gaming and the superior APU for accelerating applications beyond what a standard, old fasioned, legacy CPU can offer.
AMD as in graphics, or AMD as in processors? APUs are still a ways away from powering "featured" gaming laptops without a dedicated GPU, and if you're getting a dedicated GPU might as well pair it with a superior Intel processor.
Well here's a hint: how many AMD gaming laptops have been featured over the past several years?
And the $1000 price tag along with it.
Many consumers would prefer the dedicated GPU for gaming and the superior APU for accelerating applications beyond what a standard, old fasioned, legacy CPU can offer.
If you want a true gaming laptop, you have to pay the price. However, Microcenter has an asus laptop with a quad Ivy bridge CPU and GT630M for 799.00. Still not really a gaming laptop as such, but a much better CPU than Llano or Trinity and better graphics performance as well.
If you want a true gaming laptop, you have to pay the price. However, Microcenter has an asus laptop with a quad Ivy bridge CPU and GT630M for 799.00. Still not really a gaming laptop as such, but a much better CPU than Llano or Trinity and better graphics performance as well.
You know you can have a trinity + Discrete for higher performance.
I bet at the same price or lower than an Intel Laptop with Discrete GPU a Trinity + Discrete in CF will always be faster.
No, we are talking about how Trinity can be a winner in both Low Power performance and High Computing/Gaming.
5800K can be easy overclock over 5 GHz for benchmarking, so...There is point for Crossfire (with LN2 more) with mainstream GPUs.
5800K can be easy overclock over 5 GHz for benchmarking, so...There is point for Crossfire (with LN2 more) with mainstream GPUs.
5800K can be easy overclock over 5 GHz for benchmarking, so...There is point for Crossfire (with LN2 more) with mainstream GPUs.
We do not want CF (or SLI for that matter) mainstream as long as they are based on AFR. The average user cannot and should not burdened with their shortcomings. Especially in notebooks the low fps scream for microstuttering which becomes even worse when two GPUs with different speeds are connected.
If you want a true gaming laptop, you have to pay the price. However, Microcenter has an asus laptop with a quad Ivy bridge CPU and GT630M for 799.00. Still not really a gaming laptop as such, but a much better CPU than Llano or Trinity and better graphics performance as well.
There are a lot of different methods to use multiple GPUs. 3DFX used a tile based SLI where they broke the screen into multiple tiles and each card would render one of them. While this avoids microstutter, it does not give nearly as good increases in raw FPS, like AFR does.Is there actually an alternative rendering approach instead of AFR? And if there is, would it require game engines and APIs (DirectX/OpenGL) to be re-written?
I still think that when used with a dGPU it makes more sense to use the iGPU for physics, AA or something. And if for instance i7-3770K could use its HD4000 for something when paired with a dGPU we wouldn't have these constant forum posts about the wasted die space in IB. That at least would be worth something...
While Alternate Frame Rendering might be a poor thing in PCs due their variability, in next-gen consoles - where the capabilities of CPU and GPU are fully known and predicable - having two GPUs makes a lot more sense. One problem might be that due to the closed nature of GPU drivers, getting 'to the metal' of both GPUs and keeping threads etc. in sync is harder than with multiple CPUs.
The GT630m is just a rebrand 540m and though it's good at x768 it just doesn't have enough horsepower for higher res at higher settings. The 540m isn't Kepler but rather a hot and power hungry Fermi. It's either a GF108 or GF106 and either 28nm or 40nm. The rebrands with horrible naming schemes continue...
There are some great deals on GT640m + Ivy i7's every now and then, though. HP has had a 30%+ coupon for those laptops that brought it under $1000. If you're going to buy an nVidia discrete mobile GPU I'd *much* rather buy a Kepler and that means at least a 640m as everything under that is Fermi and really not good for laptops.
Is there actually an alternative rendering approach instead of AFR? And if there is, would it require game engines and APIs (DirectX/OpenGL) to be re-written?
I still think that when used with a dGPU it makes more sense to use the iGPU for physics, AA or something. And if for instance i7-3770K could use its HD4000 for something when paired with a dGPU we wouldn't have these constant forum posts about the wasted die space in IB. That at least would be worth something...
While Alternate Frame Rendering might be a poor thing in PCs due their variability, in next-gen consoles - where the capabilities of CPU and GPU are fully known and predicable - having two GPUs makes a lot more sense. One problem might be that due to the closed nature of GPU drivers, getting 'to the metal' of both GPUs and keeping threads etc. in sync is harder than with multiple CPUs.
APU+dGPU could provide some benefits, though. You mentioned physics, which is a very good example. Or some kind of post processing.
There is currently no alternative to AFR, since all alternatives will impact scaling performance very heavily. And hence make SLI/Crossfire utterly useless.