Companies are turning computers into tablets.

Quote from: General Disarray on March 02, 2012, 11:00:54 PM

Quote from: Thork on March 02, 2012, 02:45:02 AM

You are aware Intel no longer make CPUs? That they now make APUs.

Their current flagship processors contain no integrated graphics.

Actually, Intel started integrating HD 2000 and HD 3000 graphics in Sandy Bridge and improved HD 3000 performance in Ivy Bridge.

The 3960X, 3930k and 3820 do not have integrated graphics. Their mainstream products do, but the extreme editions don't.

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2012, 07:43:33 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on March 02, 2012, 11:00:54 PM

Quote from: Thork on March 02, 2012, 02:45:02 AM

You are aware Intel no longer make CPUs? That they now make APUs.

Their current flagship processors contain no integrated graphics.

Actually, Intel started integrating HD 2000 and HD 3000 graphics in Sandy Bridge and improved HD 3000 performance in Ivy Bridge.

The 3960X, 3930k and 3820 do not have integrated graphics. Their mainstream products do, but the extreme editions don't.

Extreme edition processors are not Intel's flagship product.  If anything, they are a niche product.

Quote from: General Disarray on March 04, 2012, 09:04:20 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2012, 07:43:33 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on March 02, 2012, 11:00:54 PM

Quote from: Thork on March 02, 2012, 02:45:02 AM

You are aware Intel no longer make CPUs? That they now make APUs.

Their current flagship processors contain no integrated graphics.

Actually, Intel started integrating HD 2000 and HD 3000 graphics in Sandy Bridge and improved HD 3000 performance in Ivy Bridge.

The 3960X, 3930k and 3820 do not have integrated graphics. Their mainstream products do, but the extreme editions don't.

Extreme edition processors are not Intel's flagship product.  If anything, they are a niche product.

Wikipedia is wrong on that one.  A flagship is generally the largest, fastest, strongest vessel in the navy, and the commander of the entire fleet is on board.  So the expression generally refers the best that is offered, and this is certainly true for CPUs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagship

A flagship store is the biggest and best store, a flagship car model is the most expensive usually, or fastest, or biggest.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20486
http://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/Intels-1000-flagship-CPU-exists-again-form-3960X-Extreme-Edition
http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/amds-flagship-hd6990-is-silent-air-cooling-possible/
http://www.motortrend.com/future/future_vehicles/1008_cadillac_flagship_is_back_on/

these are all the best the company has to offer, and therefore considered the "flagship", which is not a "core" product. 

Since extreme edition cpus are not used in tablets (or any low power device), they are hardly relevant to this discussion.  Intel's mobility line of CPUs does include integrated graphics.

Since extreme edition cpus are not used in tablets (or any low power device), they are hardly relevant to this discussion.  Intel's mobility line of CPUs does include integrated graphics.

But they are relevant to the Thork's post.

Quote from: markjo on March 04, 2012, 04:56:34 PM

Since extreme edition cpus are not used in tablets (or any low power device), they are hardly relevant to this discussion.  Intel's mobility line of CPUs does include integrated graphics.

But they are relevant to the Thork's post.

Thork is more or less describing a SoC, which has been around for quite a while in the embedded processor market.

The important question about this thread is about why I always want to use scrollbars in images even if they aren't the same as the scrollbars that are actually used by my computer.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on March 04, 2012, 05:29:08 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 04, 2012, 04:56:34 PM

Since extreme edition cpus are not used in tablets (or any low power device), they are hardly relevant to this discussion.  Intel's mobility line of CPUs does include integrated graphics.

But they are relevant to the Thork's post.

Thork is more or less describing a SoC, which has been around for quite a while in the embedded processor market.

You are aware Intel no longer make CPUs? That they now make APUs.

I was responding to this.

Quote from: Thork on March 02, 2012, 02:45:02 AM

You are aware Intel no longer make CPUs? That they now make APUs.

I was responding to this.

The APU that Thork is referring to is just marketing speak for a CPU and a GPU on the same die.  Using that logic, one could argue that Intel hasn't made CPUs since the 486DX came with an integrated FPU.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on March 04, 2012, 06:04:40 PM

Quote from: Thork on March 02, 2012, 02:45:02 AM

You are aware Intel no longer make CPUs? That they now make APUs.

I was responding to this.

The APU that Thork is referring to is just marketing speak for a CPU and a GPU on the same die.  Using that logic, one could argue that Intel hasn't made CPUs since the 486DX came with an integrated FPU.

Hahahah yeah, i know about computers... i built three in the last week.  One of them was A F1 socket with a 3870k.  My point is that Intel still builds designated CPUs, in fact they have an entire socket that lacks any sort of on-board graphics.  The 2011 socket, or sandy bridge - E does not support integrated graphics (and its a very new socket).  This will be the case for the foreseeable future, integrated graphics have improved, but they are nowhere near the realm of what you can achieve with dedicated GPUs.  iI doubt that integrated GPUs will come close to crossfired 7970s.

For now there is an enthusiast market, and therefore Intel will continue to make CPUs, not just APUs.

This directly contradicts what Thork said.  He may have meant to say "the market is switching towards integrated graphics" but what he said was "intel does not make CPUs anymore" which is very different and incorrect.

And I'm just saying that calling a CPU with integrated graphics and APU is just buying into silly marketing dribble.  As far as I'm concerned, an i7 is a CPU regardless of whether or not a GPU has been integrated.

And I'm just saying that calling a CPU with integrated graphics and APU is just buying into silly marketing dribble.  As far as I'm concerned, an i7 is a CPU regardless of whether or not a GPU has been integrated.

I agree.  I mean, the only thing that separates a GPU from a CPU as far as I know is a GPU has instruction sets designed to optimize graphical math functions.  So throw in a few dozen more instruction sets and there ya go.

Tablets are definitely the way of the future, but my guess is that the keyborad and mouse will soon enter into a happy marriage with them. The problem right now is that it's very hard to make a lightweight, desirable tablet which has specs comparable to a decent PC.


That will change, and when it does, people will buy a tablet that comes with a keyboard and mouse, plug them in, and use it just as they would a desktop computer. Then when they head out later on, they'll unplug it and bring their tablet with them. Or, they'll have extremely portable (possibly fabric-based) versions of those devices. They'll have the best of both worlds.


There are many people out there who use their computers primarily to browse the internet, listen to music/watch films, and write things (emails, tweets, facebook updates, essays etc). They don't want a big home computer and a fairly heavy laptop. They want something simple, portable and functional.


I agree that tablets are currently not capable of replacing traditional computers. I certainly won't be getting one yet. But I can definitely see a day when they'll make sense.

Tablets are definitely the way of the future, but my guess is that the keyborad and mouse will soon enter into a happy marriage with them. The problem right now is that it's very hard to make a lightweight, desirable tablet which has specs comparable to a decent PC.


That will change, and when it does, people will buy a tablet that comes with a keyboard and mouse, plug them in, and use it just as they would a desktop computer. Then when they head out later on, they'll unplug it and bring their tablet with them. Or, they'll have extremely portable (possibly fabric-based) versions of those devices. They'll have the best of both worlds.


There are many people out there who use their computers primarily to browse the internet, listen to music/watch films, and write things (emails, tweets, facebook updates, essays etc). They don't want a big home computer and a fairly heavy laptop. They want something simple, portable and functional.


I agree that tablets are currently not capable of replacing traditional computers. I certainly won't be getting one yet. But I can definitely see a day when they'll make sense.

Perhaps a keyboard, but I don't know that a mouse is a desirable attachment for the next generation.

Well, I'm thinking of a modern version, like a wireless trackpad. Typing with a keyboard and using the touch-screen isn't really going to work. Fabric keyboards are already with us (though they're still quite gimmicky), and motion-sensing keyboards and trackpads can't be too far away.

I think that tablets will just be in interim product until wearable computers mature into something that doesn't make you look like a cyborg or an idiot (or both).  However, wearable computers will only be in interim step until implants become practical.