HawkMan Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Uh...yeah...I outlined a few benefits of going with a GPU socket in the last part of my post. yeah, but you're quite wrong on at least a few of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGeorge Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 yeah, but you're quite wrong on at least a few of them. Do explain then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted December 31, 2009 Veteran Share Posted December 31, 2009 One downside I can see, is because the GPU would be without it's supporting hardware (all those chips and capacitors do things), you'd be limited to what the motherboard offers. So when you need to go outside what the motherboard can do, you need a new mobo. So it'd be like CPU's in that regard, I can't just whack a brand new i7 into my mobo since it doesn't have the hardware to support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MS Bob 11 Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Proportionally one-step behind. GMA should at least do that if you look at the latest monsters from NVIDIA and ATI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Do explain then. Well to start off with, you would't really have any real cooling benefits. since you'd need a massive cooling block like on the CPU. and you'd need one for the video memory too. instead of a slimline, cooling solution that fits over a flat surface on the PCI-E card and wents out an adjacent PCI port. price wise perhaps. but then you couldn't upgrade majors parts of the graphics solution. today when you upgrade, the whole GPU socket is upgrade with more and bigger busses, better ram and all that. stuff that would require a new motherboard. not cost effective. there's more to ugprading a video card than just changing the gpu. sure if you where changign form a 8600gt to an 8800gt, then yeah, but anythign more, even 8800gts wouldn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGeorge Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 I agree that what you and the Decryptor mention are hurdles, but I think they could also be overcome. Personally I would rather have to deal with a bigger HSF on the GPU and have all the space that not having some huge card sticking out of the motherboard would provide. Faster RAM and limitations of the MB could present a problem in regards of upgrading, but then again, MB manufacturers have never designed a MB around this concept before so the problems you present only apply to what we currently have experience with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted December 31, 2009 Veteran Share Posted December 31, 2009 Well you could overcome the issue of the lack of supporting hardware, by adding the hardware to the chip, but since we can't make it that small it'd have to be on a board connected to a chip. Then we're in the same situation as we currently are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 a HSF that's bigger than the graphics card isn't space saving, not when it comes bundled with disadvantages and an inability to upgrade to the degree than a slot does. you're stickign to an idea that you thought where a good one, despite being give proof that it's not that good, also impractical and not very servcieabl. and most importantly don't offer the advantages you thought it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Who cares? nVidia already has the integrated 9400 (or Ion in netbooks), and soon the Ion 2 is coming out which is supposedly going to have twice as many shaders, if not more. Intel is always going to lag so far behind that if you're relying on them for gaming graphics then you're shooting yourself in the foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGeorge Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 a HSF that's bigger than the graphics card isn't space saving, not when it comes bundled with disadvantages and an inability to upgrade to the degree than a slot does.you're stickign to an idea that you thought where a good one, despite being give proof that it's not that good, also impractical and not very servcieabl. and most importantly don't offer the advantages you thought it would. Why would a GPU HSF need to be any bigger than a normal CPU HSF? A typical OEM CPU HSF looks like it could do a better job than what is currently being used on a typical gfx card. I'm not sticking to my idea out of stubbornness, I believe it hasn't been fully explored thats all. Given that none of us here are qualified to say one way or the other, unless its tried we'll never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 And why couldn't they create a standardized socket like they've done with PCI-E? Just because Intel and AMD like to change sockets all the time with CPUs doesn't mean GPU developers have to do the same. Besides, think of PCI, AGP and PCI-E as if they were sockets: PCI was replaced by AGP and PCI-E replaced AGP. It doesn't matter how the hardware interfaces, sooner or later a better interface will come along and replace the old one. The same would hold true if they moved to a GPU socket on the motherboard, only we would benefit from better cooling, more space and possibly reduced cost since they'd only be selling us a chip versus a giant card, with capacitors, RAM, etc. The fact that GPU's use slots is not the reason they are so big. They would not magically be able to change gpu's down to cpu size if they changed to using a socket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGeorge Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 I can't find many pics of bare GPUs on the net, but the ones I did find indicate they're not much bigger than CPUs. Again, I'm not suggesting that the other components of a gfx card don't serve a purpose, just that if a motherboard was designed with a GPU socket those components would be integrated into the board. Xbox360 GPU vs an Nvidia 9400: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 I think intel should stick with producing processors, their IGP's are always very slow and are terrible for gaming. There about as bad as those VIA IGP's *shudder*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 i think people are missing the point. These arent for Alienware gaming laptops, having an inexpensive GPU thats capable of playing "casual" games is great for those that use laptops for browsing, chatting, music and facebook they can just bung Sims 3 in and have a game, which means they dont have to spend ?500+ on a laptop you can pick up a cheap dual core laptop with integrated GPU, 3-4Gb ram, 320gb hdd for under ?299 these days and anything that will beef up the integrated GPU is a plus for casual laptop owners and great for battery life for those that dont need bleeding edge gamers performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 eww the sims...snap the disc and burn it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 i think people are missing the point. These arent for Alienware gaming laptops, having an inexpensive GPU thats capable of playing "casual" games is great for those that use laptops for browsing, chatting, music and facebook they can just bung Sims 3 in and have a game, which means they dont have to spend ?500+ on a laptop you can pick up a cheap dual core laptop with integrated GPU, 3-4Gb ram, 320gb hdd for under ?299 these days and anything that will beef up the integrated GPU is a plus for casual laptop owners and great for battery life for those that dont need bleeding edge gamers performance. The 9400 IGP isn't very expensive. Intel is still lagging behind by years here -- of course they're going to slowly increase the power of their IGPs -- it always happens. But when you're behind by years suddenly the games that you thought were a big deal to play no longer matter, such as now being able to play Quake III on IGP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarki Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Why would a GPU HSF need to be any bigger than a normal CPU HSF? A typical OEM CPU HSF looks like it could do a better job than what is currently being used on a typical gfx card. I'm not sticking to my idea out of stubbornness, I believe it hasn't been fully explored thats all. Given that none of us here are qualified to say one way or the other, unless its tried we'll never know. I think you're overlooking too many factors in this "universal onboard GPU socket" idea of yours. Where would the mosfet's go? Where would the memory go? Currently Ati uses GDDR5 memory and Nvidia uses GDDR3 do we have multiple memory sockets? What if I wanted quad SLI or Crossfire-X, so now I need 4 GPU sockets on my motherboard? I'd also need some PCI-E power connectors on my motherboard, unless the complete ATX standard gets re-worked. There would be more copper tracing required on the motherboard - space would be an issue. The list goes on and that is why we have expansion slots on a motherboard and 99% of graphics cards on a PCI-E card :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 The 9400 IGP isn't very expensive. Intel is still lagging behind by years here -- of course they're going to slowly increase the power of their IGPs -- it always happens. But when you're behind by years suddenly the games that you thought were a big deal to play no longer matter, such as now being able to play Quake III on IGP. Look at the prices though, the cheapest notebook with 9400M is a netbook and even then its ?370~ you can pick up a new netbook with Atom and Intel GPU for ?250~ thats a huge chunk of savings and even better if that GPU could run Sims 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Look at the prices though, the cheapest notebook with 9400M is a netbook and even then its ?370~ you can pick up a new netbook with Atom and Intel GPU for ?250~ thats a huge chunk of savings and even better if that GPU could run Sims 3. You're talking about netbooks now and not notebooks. And you're hypothetically assuming Intel's IGP won't cost more than what it currently does -- who's to say that will be the case, or that it will even be in netbooks? Intel's netbooks have their weakest IGPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Wow, Intel's IGP will run games that ATI and nVidia IGP's have been capable of running for some time now. Innovation of the highest calibre! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts