Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It always made sense to have a single chip instead of 2, I just want to buy a single package with both things on the same die.

That might make things much simpler for people who write kernel, drivers and video games.

The history of CPU and GPU prevented that, it was always more profitable for CPU and GPU vendors to sell them separately.

Having 2 specialized chips makes more sense because it's flexible, but since frequencies are stagnating, having more cores make sense, and AI means massively parallel things are not only for graphics.

Smartphones are much modern in that regard. Nobody upgrades their GPU or CPU anymore, might as well have a single, soldered product that last a long time instead.

That may not be the end of building your own computer, but I just hope it will make things simpler and in a smaller package.




It's not about profit, it's about power and pin budget. Proper GPU needs lots of memory bandwidth=lots of memory-dedicated pins (HBM kinda solves this, but has tons of other issues). And on power/thermal side having two chips each with dedicated power circuits, heatsinks and radiators is always better then one. The only reason NOT to have to chips is either space (that's why we have integrated graphics and it sucks performance-wise), packaging costs (not really a concern for consumer GPU/CPU where we are now) or interconnect costs (but for both gaming and compute CPU-GPU bandwith is negligible compared to GPU-RAM).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: