That makes a bit more sense.
To be honest I'm surprised that they still have CPUs without an IGP. I guess they just want to avoid breaking backwards compatibility with the socket. Also they wanted to use the same chips for servers and desktops and of course IGPs are completely useless for server CPUs. I suspect that in the near future (2-3 years) they will either add IGPs to the FX lineup or ditch the FX lineup entirely. So in that sense he's right.
It's hard to calculate how much financial emphasis is being placed on one or the other since they both share the same cpu microarchitecture and the IGP uses the same microarchitecture as their discrete GPUs. As far as sales go CPUs without IGPs are extremely impractical for laptops and smaller systems. So that limits "traditional cpus" to systems with a much smaller user base. So APUs as a result do sell better in terms of total sales.
Still I don't like the wording of "shifting emphasis to APUs". All they did was move the IGP from the chipset to the cpu die like Intel.... That wording makes it sound like they moved to an entirely new type of product. They've been making chipsers, IGPs, and CPUs for many years. They just never put them on the same chip due to a number of constraints that no longer exist. Size being the most obvious one. They're still making the same products for the same markets, just with more integration. The design process is still the same and the functionality of the products is still the same. They're still working on the same things they were 5 years ago. So I don't really see any shifted emphasis in terms of the development side of this. Maybe from a consumer standpoint it seems that way with most cpus now have on-die IGPs when they didn't before. But really that was just the outcome of them continuing to do what they do. Just like how IGPs went from standalone cards to on board. Then from on board to on chipset. Now we've gone from on chipset to on die. The only way they could push it further is on core integration which I due suspect will happen in a few years.
True change is coming though. They may shift their emphasis more to the GPU side in the near future. But we're not quite there yet and to say that would just be an educated guess at this point. If AMD does decide to do that and focus on GPGPU one of three things will likely happen.
1. It is successful and turns the tides in their favor. Intel has a brainfart and they pay the price. Which I doubt will happen but I certainly could be wrong.
2. It is successful but doesn't turn the tide in their favor. Intel catches on and competes with them on the same ground. Nothing really changes.
3. It is unsuccessful. It turns out to not be a game changer. It never gains anything more than a small amount of adoption from software developers. It becomes a niche market like Itanium and and doesn't significant benefit any company. I doubt this outcome too because of the number of companies and devs that have already expressed interest in it.
To be honest I'm surprised that they still have CPUs without an IGP. I guess they just want to avoid breaking backwards compatibility with the socket. Also they wanted to use the same chips for servers and desktops and of course IGPs are completely useless for server CPUs. I suspect that in the near future (2-3 years) they will either add IGPs to the FX lineup or ditch the FX lineup entirely. So in that sense he's right.
It's hard to calculate how much financial emphasis is being placed on one or the other since they both share the same cpu microarchitecture and the IGP uses the same microarchitecture as their discrete GPUs. As far as sales go CPUs without IGPs are extremely impractical for laptops and smaller systems. So that limits "traditional cpus" to systems with a much smaller user base. So APUs as a result do sell better in terms of total sales.
Still I don't like the wording of "shifting emphasis to APUs". All they did was move the IGP from the chipset to the cpu die like Intel.... That wording makes it sound like they moved to an entirely new type of product. They've been making chipsers, IGPs, and CPUs for many years. They just never put them on the same chip due to a number of constraints that no longer exist. Size being the most obvious one. They're still making the same products for the same markets, just with more integration. The design process is still the same and the functionality of the products is still the same. They're still working on the same things they were 5 years ago. So I don't really see any shifted emphasis in terms of the development side of this. Maybe from a consumer standpoint it seems that way with most cpus now have on-die IGPs when they didn't before. But really that was just the outcome of them continuing to do what they do. Just like how IGPs went from standalone cards to on board. Then from on board to on chipset. Now we've gone from on chipset to on die. The only way they could push it further is on core integration which I due suspect will happen in a few years.
True change is coming though. They may shift their emphasis more to the GPU side in the near future. But we're not quite there yet and to say that would just be an educated guess at this point. If AMD does decide to do that and focus on GPGPU one of three things will likely happen.
1. It is successful and turns the tides in their favor. Intel has a brainfart and they pay the price. Which I doubt will happen but I certainly could be wrong.
2. It is successful but doesn't turn the tide in their favor. Intel catches on and competes with them on the same ground. Nothing really changes.
3. It is unsuccessful. It turns out to not be a game changer. It never gains anything more than a small amount of adoption from software developers. It becomes a niche market like Itanium and and doesn't significant benefit any company. I doubt this outcome too because of the number of companies and devs that have already expressed interest in it.
"Normally if given a choice between doing something and nothing, I’d choose to do nothing. But I would do something if it helps someone else do nothing. I’d work all night if it meant nothing got done."
-Ron Swanson
"I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. "
-Mark Antony
-Ron Swanson
"I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. "
-Mark Antony