› ›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

New era of compact gaming with X399 chipset?

CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,414
in Hardware
At first glance the X399 chipset seems geared towards workstations. Many cores, many PCI-e lanes, many memory dimms, a lot of expandability, and ECC memory. But there are some rumors it could make a good compact solution.
4k pins offers a possibility that was not there before with an APU. Built in HBM2 memory. AMD would be capable of pairing a powerful GPU with a lot of fast memory in the CPU package. Of course the big factor will be how it displaces heat, but not needing a discrete GPU would mean it could take up a small footprint. For instance Apple could use such a design in Mac Pro.

Comments

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,509
    Does that platform even have a way to offer monitor outputs?  Lots of pins, certainly, but I don't know how flexible their usage is.

    I thought AMD said that Socket AM4 was going to be around for a long time and that would be the one that offered integrated graphics.  I don't see any reason why they couldn't offer an AM4 APU with a bigger integrated GPU that offers a stack of HBM2 on package in addition to the normal DDR4 memory off package.  HBM2 doesn't need any pins coming off of the package, as the connection is via a silicon interposer that is entirely inside the same package as the GPU.
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,414
    Whoops, forgot to look at the most fundamental issue of is their a display output. Aside from the pins, the size of the CPU package allows for more to be packed on.
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383
    I don't think Threadripper, which is roughly the size of a Buick, is going to do a whole lot for miniaturization of the gaming PC.

    Now, I realize this is just the chipset, and not the CPU - but that socket is a huge honk'n socket build with bandwidth in mind - to be able to feed a lot of cores. Size and power density are almost afterthoughts in a package like that.

    I do think SOC may eventually come to the desktop - it's close now, and there's been a few attempts at an x86 SOC (Atom comes to mind primarily). 
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,509
    The problem with a desktop SoC is that you don't get very much connectivity out of it.  A chipset makes it easy to offer 6 SATA ports and 12 USB ports that share bandwidth to the CPU.  An SoC would mean that they all have to have their own separate pins coming off of the CPU socket.  Threadripper does have a lot of pins, but that's not what they're used for.

    An SoC is more common in a laptop where only being able to have 2 SATA ports, 4 USB ports, and one PCI Express slot isn't a big deal.  If SoCs become common in desktops, it will probably be by using laptop parts.  But I don't see a need for that, as there's room for a chipset even on a Mini ITX motherboard.  Once you start pushing smaller than that like the Intel NUC, is that really a desktop anymore?
    [Deleted User]
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,992
    I think new era of compact gaming is being brought by ARM based solutions. Gaming laptops are being marginalized.
     
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383
    Quizzical said:
    The problem with a desktop SoC is that you don't get very much connectivity out of it.  A chipset makes it easy to offer 6 SATA ports and 12 USB ports that share bandwidth to the CPU.  An SoC would mean that they all have to have their own separate pins coming off of the CPU socket.  Threadripper does have a lot of pins, but that's not what they're used for.

    An SoC is more common in a laptop where only being able to have 2 SATA ports, 4 USB ports, and one PCI Express slot isn't a big deal.  If SoCs become common in desktops, it will probably be by using laptop parts.  But I don't see a need for that, as there's room for a chipset even on a Mini ITX motherboard.  Once you start pushing smaller than that like the Intel NUC, is that really a desktop anymore?
    Isn't that where the ITX and ultraminature folks want to head though? I mean, once you get smaller than microATX, your in a realm where you aren't able to get the higher powered/higher performance parts anyway.

    I always get confused - they always want smaller but still want high performance.
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 7,591
    edited July 2017
    Torval said:
    I want smaller appliance like functionality and I think it can be done better than what typically comes across looking like a cobbled together golem from a 60's b-rated sci-fi tv show.

    Smaller and high performance are possible. Smaller and high performance doesn't mean smallest and bleeding edge performance. We're at a place now where we can get great performance without the highest end hardware requiring larger hotter components in a big box.
    If MS is smart, they'd make the Xbox a fully 100% functional PC. I know they're closer to that.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

Sign In or Register to comment.