"The Future Is Fusion"... is AMD right?


Recommended Posts

I've recently built a Media Center/Gaming PC to go with my new HDTV, and decided to give AMD's "Trinity" platform a chance with its A10 5700. At first, I didn't think this PC could do much better than run old games at low resolutions, but Trinity has blown me away. Dark Souls? 30-40fps at 1080p - better than on PS3. Trine 2? 45fps at 1080p, high settings. Recent, GPU-bound titles running at full HD, no significant compromises in graphical quality, and enjoyable framerates.

That an integrated GPU can offer what only a discrete solution could since hardware accelerated graphics began, is a revolution.

First let's look at the current state of things. For the most powerful all-around and specifically gaming machine, things are still as they have been for the past 8 years or so: the latest Intel CPU paired with a power-hungry graphics card with a monstrous cooler, either AMD Radeon or NVIDIA Geforce. Llano didn't change this, Trinity doesn't change this, and Richland won't change this either.

What AMD's APUs bring to the table, however, is the possibility of dropping the discrete card entirely, and for a fraction of the price, power and thermal envelope, getting still pretty darn good performance in most games, even at high resolutions. It's a significant tradeoff, sure, but one that can make sense for real gaming, something unthinkable just a year ago. For HTPCs, laptops, and basically every form factor where price, power draw, noise and heat are critical concerns, APUs are bound to make discrete graphics cards irrelevant very quickly.

As for desktop PCs where these considerations matter less, the future of discrete cards is not as clear as it was either. Of course, in their current iterations (Trinity/Richland), APUs cannot compete with any recent 100$+ graphics card, a relatively small investment for vastly superior performance. Yet, the two next-generation consoles, PS4 and Xbox One, are confirmed/rumored respectively to be AMD APUs, sporting 8GB of unified memory and performance in the 2 TFlops range. As absurd at this may sound, the next generation of consoles runs on integrated graphics, based on technology very similar to the 130$ Trinity running the HTPC in my living room. This makes my brain want to explode.

There are many advantages to this solution. Unified memory means more flexibility in how it is shared in each application, less overhead in GPU-CPU communication, and a vastly simplified programming model for developers. If AMD can make this work at state-of-the-art performance level on next-generation consoles, can't we hope for this to happen on desktop PC in the forseeable future?

AMD's slogan has been "The Future is Fusion" for nearly 5 years now, and I'm starting to believe it. Intel is quickly catching up in this territory as well, with Haswell promising performance similar to the Geforce GT 650M. It's an interesting take on things to see Intel playing catch-up on AMD when AMD has been largely perceived as the underdog in the past few years. Holding the CPU performance crown may be nice, but it never gave anyone playable framerates, and I'd venture to say that AMD CPUs are still fast enough for most uses in most circumstances. At least, that's what Intel is apparently thinking, with Haswell focusing essentially on power consumption (vs ARM) and graphics performance (vs AMD).

Oh yeah, and John Carmack seems to agree:

The current generation Fusion parts are really a separate CPU and separate GPU connected on the die by better or worse interconnects, but their vision is integrating them much more tightly such that they share cache hierarchies, address space, and page tables. I think its almost a foregone conclusion that its going to be the dominant architecture in the marketplace because there are these strong forces about how we are getting more shrinks on the dies, [and] we can stick more things on there. It?s going to just pay to integrate that, and you aren't going to be able to put as many transistors towards that if its a dedicated chip. You'll pick up a lot from this tight integration with cost benefits.
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1153754-the-future-is-fusion-is-amd-right/
Share on other sites

Isn't that the new AMD APU they are going to put on the XBOX One?

Reports are that APUs in next-gen consoles are custom designs, based on Kaveri (perhaps?) which is Richland's successor. In any case it's much more advanced than what's currently on the market for PCs.

This being said (and true), I don't understand why Intel didn't pack Iris Pro in more of their upcoming CPUs. Just like it is with IB - the low end, where IGP is most likely to be used, got measly HD2500, but high end got HD4000, mostly *in vain*, because those people often opted for superpowered discrete GPU anyway.

Does Intel think that people will opt for more expensive knowing the difference? Some would. But they *don't* know the difference - they simply fully expect the new series to be better!

This being said (and true), I don't understand why Intel didn't pack Iris Pro in more of their upcoming CPUs. Just like it is with IB - the low end, where IGP is most likely to be used, got measly HD2500, but high end got HD4000, mostly *in vain*, because those people often opted for superpowered discrete GPU anyway.

Does Intel think that people will opt for more expensive knowing the difference? Some would. But they *don't* know the difference - they simply fully expect the new series to be better!

Well, the i3225 has the HD4000 on it.

Anyway, yes, I've always thought AMD was ahead of the game in this field, it's no surprise Sony and MS went with them for their new consoles.

I think the main drawback in this discussion for me would be "choice" and tied into a set solution. I like many others sway in the winds of change as the power heads of the technology world fight it out. Right now I have an Intel Machine with an Nvidia Graphics Card and could I live with a AMD CPU + Integrated future GPU? - sure! Do I want to have choice taken away from me? Answer: NO, does everyone think like me? Answer: NO

I think it is a good way to get a machine up and running with little cost but for some - this is just an extra cost and not a set future unless people love everything to be uniform.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!