Intel's GPU is not what you think 

Coreteks, I just did. =)

John, many thanks! I just set it up today so haven't put any rewards up but I'm cooking something :)

I'll support you, when I have a credit crad. Tbh, it's more liky for me to have a paypal accoutn, but whatever. If you continue making videos like these, I will have to support you on patreon. You defenately deserve it!

Coreteks when was the day when Intel failed in gaming? Situation is actually vice-versa - intel outperforms amd mainly in gaming.

They haven't, their products are actually really good, just crazy expensive. They haven't failed gaming but are failing gamers.. notice how they are segmenting their CPUs. "Want hyperthreading? well spend an extra $50 and we'll give it to you!" "Want to upgrade from skylake or kaby lake? Buy a great new motherboard even though the new CPUs could use the old mbs"..

rd NVIDIA/RTX 2080/Gaming Value

AMD/Vega64/4k60fps/

@@bobbavet Not true.

@Y man this type of comment can be seen everywhere

@TheDoh007 Wow that feels good to hear, never expected to go this far!

Lol thinking the same thing

Apple stopped innovating after Steve Jobs died and they've been transitioning into a luxury veblen good producer ever since. The iPhone is like the Rolls Royce of cell phones today, people keep buying them for the social status rather than innovation now.

Jeez you guys are dense, Apple is gaining market share and value. It innovates in so many different areas, but you only look at the surface. Remind me who is pioneering 7nm chips right now?

Sorry, what innovations in the last 5 generations of devices have revolutionized the market? As far as I can see, *good facial recognition hardware* is the only thing in all these years since Mr. Jobs rescued and transformed that company. Ever since, it's been resting on its laurels and hiking up prices like no other company. In fact, due to Apple doing that, devices across the board cost more. Samsung? Google? Yet, salaries haven't increased much, but over 5 years the cost of unlocked, new flagship devices have doubled :P

my exact first thought, lol.

AMD still pays Intel to make x86 chips though.

Not as much.

Also for some reason, the US hasn't bailed out AMD at all despite the fact that their collapse would give Intel a complete monopoly over personal computer processors.

@Skye Neither Intel or AMD are paying royalties to one another, the both settled back in 2009 to a royalty free deal in which AMD can freely use X86, and Intel can freely use X86-64

ok, so are you saying that if i wanna buy a laptop now, ryzen are as good as intel ? what ryzen should i take to be as performant as an i7 -8850H ?

Thanks for the kind words, and you are right on the money regarding APUs, more on that later :)

“doom and gloom”? I didn't perceive it as they will die, just lose out in the "regular" computer business. On top of that ARM is catching up and becoming more and more powerful for more and more applications. And who knows what RISC-V can bring. Intel has a of of businesses going on though, so even if they would lose everything x86 tomorrow they still have a lot of stuff to lean on.

Luckly Lisa Su pointed out that AMD will have more specialized hardware wich can be a hint that Navi will be a more gaming oriented architecture and i`m inclined to believe them since both Sony and Microsoft are important clients to them.

Talking about other uses, I expect to see Nvidia's hardware-accelerated ray tracing to soon be used for GPU-based render farms for animation studios. All we need is some major render engines to implement it. There is no way that this will stop at games; the benefit to CGI in general is too large.

Just want to point out, Ray Tracing / Ray Casting was a technique made by John Carmack in the early 90's. NVIDIA's RTX graphics card line is nothing but a cash grab and delivers barely any significant performance boost over the 1080TI. And while mostly everyone says "Stay Away" from every type of Intel HD graphics, I think the graphics performance on 7th gen and 8th gen CPU's is very good

In the future stream gaming is coming, that means your game will be rendered in server gpu farms and send back to your screen. For this, a lower net delay is needed.

Βασίλειος Μπεσλεμές I think we know how this works...but the problem is, that I don't want it to be the norm...I always want to have my own rig. I don't want to rent space on which my savegames, etc. are stored. And I always want to be able to mod my games...I don't want a dull "streaming consoley" future.

i second that, may as well buy a console for the standard experience

They are doing that. In the future, games will work as netflix. We pay a monthly or annual fee and games are streamed from the cloud. All big companies are already working on it. We already have subscription services like EA access and Xbox Game Pass, a streaming service (PS Now) and there are countless news and rummors about companies working on other streaming services. NVidia is testing Geforce Now, there are rumors about Microsoft's cheaper next gen Xbox working as a streaming machine, EA already talked about their own streaming service...

lol fuck that tbh

Ban consoles and almost everyone is pc gamer

perttierajorma 888 That is the case in a country like China. Or in Brazil, where importing a console inflates the cost so high that it easier to just get a low end PC that was made in Brazil and play games on that

Consumer electronics including mainstream computer components is a low margin market. Server is high margin because you can charge extra for reliability guarantees. As for high-performance-computing, you currently have two solutions, NVidia GPUs and Xeon Phi. The latter is not a CPU, it's a few dozen general purpose low power x86-compatible processors on a PCI express card. Fundamentally it stands to be a bit more efficient, but it can already outrun GPUs on tasks that involve branching. I'm still puzzled by how they want to unify the offerings. Xeon Phi stems from Larabee, maybe the new GPU will be Xeon Phi based. In this sense it would be perfectly unified with CPUs as the same software can run on either.

+Siana Gearz umm just sayin' AMDs GPUs are the big compute beasts...

They are remarkable but i haven't seen the AMD FirePro in HPC use personally yet, not sure what's the deal with that. I know they have equipped one supercomputer each in 2014, 2015 and 2016 or so.

LOL, didn't expect to see you here

Nice video! Not a word on the ARM servers which could cut costs for website hosting, etc.

Intel business practices is kinda Shady.

Their bits were fast with lighting

CPU temps were a little bit frightening

Run them hot with expert timing

You all gave me nerd chills 😂😂

Holy shit you can't spell lmao

Are you talking about the R9 Fury and Rury X cards that got smashed by the GTX Titan X that was released earlier that year? one thing to note is that Intel has access to all of Nvidias patents.

perhaps its just the result of reaching the limits for manufacturing transistors, thus the big improvements you saw from the 90s to 2010s is not concurrent anymore, perhaps if parallel processing became a thing again you could begin and see big leaps again, but generally I think it comes down to the fact that we are reaching the limits here. As you see the only way now is to add more cores instead of more transistors on a die.

Yea, I looked at the "New" 20 series from Nvidia and was disappointed. The new RTX features is (currently) reflect world on certain objects. Which it great and all but it kills half of your frame rate, A huge no-no for me.

RTX could end up like PhysX.

Nvidia's RTX is a great technology and is a large improvement over the previous GTX series. The RTX has real Asynchronous Compute hardware now like AMD and their tensor cores are optimized for faster rasterization. Microsoft DX12 has DXR specifically for Ray Tracing and AMD has Radeon Rays and Pro Render Ray Tracing software. Microsoft and Sony use AMD S.O.C. APUs because they are much more affordable and still perform well in the graphics segment. I promise you next year you will see big performance gains from all of the companies you listed above but beyond that I can't tell you.

AMD and nvidia have been FAR from complacent. If you look at the situation now vs 2010 , it's pretty clear that wasn't the case. AMD went from losing money on a terrible architecture on a terrible process to having an architecture that is arguably better than intel's in some ways . They have good and stable manufacturing capabilities through 3rd party fabs . In 2010 AMD had just spun off their manufacturing division because of all the money they were losing. Early this decade , AMD was essentially forced to survive on console revenue, which is an incredibly low margin segment. Now they're selling multi-thousand dollar server chips that people actually want to buy. Same goes for Nvidia. Their foray into GPGPU and hardware accelerated AI has enabled them to come from a semi-profitable graphics chip designer all the way to a legitimate threat to intel's bottom line. they went from having large , hot and underwhelming chips that wouldn't yield ( as the fermi series) to their current pascal and turing based parts , which , while expensive , are absolutely dominating the market. In 2010 , intel was definitely far ahead of anyone else. Today , they are the ones doing the catching up.

How has amd done anything to nvidia?? Lol seriously... as far as intel they have there hands in so much I bet they make more just in military contracts then amd will ever make in anything .. and now amd is totally reliant on tscm so the price advantage will slowly fade away

I do not think Nvidia is shaking. LOL ed k TSMC has little to nothing to do with the "price advantage".

bro there was no point to launch RTX, they did it just to make sure to summon their name in history as first ever to implement Ray tracing and other AI optimized computing. 10x series seriously coudl easily handle next year untill Q3 start. But they launched it. Intel well launching just after or just before AMD's line up is becoming their Moto. It is quite clear that one can now EASILY build a 1080p 144hz with AMD and that too without selling kidneys... :D

its cheaper to buy 1070 than vega 56 and its a better card anyway. lul

@Austin P ofc TSMC is has to do with price advantage, that's why AMD is making so little profit until now. their shareholder want to make some money from dividend. intel on the other hand have their own fab. because of that they have a huge profit and they happy about it

There's a lot of misinformation in this video, actually.

soy boy

Well isnt it. Or are you on of the people claimimg that we need military shit in order to "protect ourselves"

Disliked the video for the stupidity of this very sentence.

Shouldn't be a problem, but it is.

"Military nonsense" eventually trickles down to consumer appliances and gaming technologies, too.

THE PENTAGON WOULD LIKE TO KNOW YOUR LOCATION

ray tracing and path tracing are very compute heavy and once gpu's catch up it will make games look much better, traditional rasterization is nearing its limit because it uses trickery and hacks to make the graphics look realistic which is why graphic improvements have slowed down in the last few years

Oh no , harder ai , as if following the damn train isnt hard enough , now they can dodge bullets too ,DAMNIT SMOKE

Mariano true dat

Mariano "i don't need them to be real"... after you talk about wanting cinema-quality graphics. What you really mean is that graphics are more important to you than game mechanics. Opinions on this vary. And, AI requirements would be far smaller than ray tracing requirements, so we are not looking at an either/or issue..

Developer here regarding enemies, we can make them so lethal that not a single gamer would be able to beat them but in reality we are force to dumb them down so gamer are not too frustrated from losing all the time. A good enemy AI in the industry is one that look intelligent but let the player outperform him without the player noticing.

Thanks for the correction, my point was that Data is growing tremendously and Client is declining. I should have made it clearer that I meant the PC enthusiast market was a tiny portion of their overall revenue compared to Data. For 2018 they will probably announce close to a 50/50 slip between Data/Client, but you are correct that Data was lower than Client for 2017. As for most buyers prefering Intel, it makes sense, Intel has a really powerful and recognizable brand, and will continue to do so. I have a video on this topic in the works. Thanks for the comment :)

But my point was that you shouldn't be buying a brand name you should be buying a CPU XD, but I know what you mean as I said the average consumer doesn't have the interest to find out which is actually better, so staying with the brand you know makes sense to those people. I did say something to that effect in the third paragraph.

Yeah I got what you said, and I'm agreeing :)

The 'dumb consumers' that mainly buy pre-built PCs and Laptops are mostly just looking at frequency and number of cores if at all, and on the price. That's where AMD is much better than Intel, so if they keep that they can gain some market share there. And they have to, as you said. But Intel only focuses on 14nm because their production is very much stuck on it. Silicon is pretty cheap and Intel doesn't really have to sell more of it; if you're halving your transistor size you can either make the processors more powerful (they've been very reluctant with that), sell them for cheaper as you can make a little less than 4x the chips from a single wafer of silicon or of course sell a little less than 4x the number of chips. The 4x estimate of course isn't accurate at all because 14 or 7nm doesn't really describe the actual whole size of a transistor but instead is kind of of a marketing term but let's just roll with it for simplicity

amd has the console market locked down though. amd WILL be on top one day when people realize the true value of amd components. intel putting out overpriced crap because "they can" is fixing to burn them.

Competence is good for the market :vvvv

wow, burn...

@Mariano one is adoredtv. But I prefer Coretek's way of presenting information, it's a much sleeker look to his videos.

That's an insult, not a compliment...

he is not, they have totally different perspectives of technology and companies, and how they analysis the subject.

Quite the opposite for me. GPP was just branding nonsense, that doesn't matter to me. APP was simple a sales agreement, like amazon affiliate program. AMD does the same things and you apply a double standard. AMD was always the shady company, acting in criminal ways. They would run libalist PR disinfo campaigns to destroy devs that partnered with Nvidia to force them into their own partner program. They would release fraudulent slides on their blog and in press releases and distribute those to media from their blogs or offer instruction on how media could produce their own. There was a disclaimer that AMD didn't stand behind the claims of their employees, as legal cover. For example Crysis 2 DX11 patch was the first I noticed of it. Fake and deceptive wire frames, lies about the water being rendered under the ground, and lies that tessellation was the cause of AMD's poor performance. Failure to optimize for GPU writebacks was the issue. Water was tiles, a small block was simulated with directcompute, and then tiled out. The wireframes were fraudulently presented due to this as the drawn wireframe was also tiled out. Water not visible was culled, as cryengine does use occlusion culling, however because the water tile was computed on the GPU, it need to be written back and in DX11 the driver handles i/o, so the driver needed to optimize for that. Crysis 2 removed geometric popin using virtual dicing, yet AMD's comments had no connection to how tesselation was being used. Tessellation was used to walk up geometric detail from 2 triangles by subdividing them as you moved closer. When you hit 64x tessellation then that was pushed into an inflated buffer and tessellation reset to 1x and began walking up. AMD in essence was demanding that the game count to 100 without using numbers greater than 2. They put blatant lies to their customers as a demagogue, to punish developers that chose their competitor. That is mafia level criminal activity. Join AMD's partner program or else they will destroy you with lies. That is a protection racket.

@@abram730 I don't know too much about tessallation but I do Know the HD6900 and up series do an amazing job at it. Nvidia's APP "Approved Partnership Program" was for for vendors who wanted to continue making Geforce cards after the GTX 400 series had to solely and only manufacture Nvidia cards. Nvidia gave XFX the boot because XFX started manufacturing AMD cards. When Nvidia threatened other vendors with what they did to XFX, Asus, MSI, and Gigabyte intentionally rebelled and the Approved Partnership Program was disbanded. And as for GPP, Geforce Partnership Program is not really dead. Vendors who changed their naming scheme for Radeon cards are still going to use those new names on Radeon cards. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-H0L3OTZ13Os.html

Abram Would you mind backing up your bold statements? I've been into computers since Windows 3.11 and closely monitored the development and know most about all shenanigans going on, but those allegations are completely new to me.

@@snetmotnosrorb3946 Which ones? All of the web pages about Nvidia giving XFX the boot and Asus, MSI and Gigabyte rebelling against the APP have been removed but I did find one that doesn't go into as much detail but gives some backing up. www.fudzilla.com/news/graphics/20453-xfx-officially-stops-doing-nvidia When it happened I ended up switching to Radeon in 2010. I only bought XFX or EVGA because I got burned from buying BFG.

@Timothy Isenhart I know about all that stuff. I was targeting the other guy above you, Abram Carroll.

They have done nothing but give up being a manufacturer and add more cores .. with tscm holding AMD's future in their hands now slowly amd will lose price control also

@@wuhanlabtech3580 what do you mean? Amds cpu prices gona drop even lower because of the competition. Extra need for intel: factories cant keep up Extra need for amd and nvidia: companies will fight to make contracts for extra production (lower production price)

Discovery in a lawsuit showed that Nvidia was trying to get ATI on board with a computing push against Intel back before AMD bought them. They lost the lawsuit because Nvidia gave ATI the heads up about the 8800 ultra, so they could have a competing product. Back then it was Nvidia + AMD vs. ATI + Intel. AMD's GPU business harms their CPU business because they still make GPU's that only perform best when using an Intel CPU. This is because they only accept a single stream of instructions and only have single threaded drivers. Intels higher per thread IPC is required.

Mr.brokendreams AMD has not carried anything, ever. They have forced price drops and cores increases from Intel and Nvidia, but that is not the same as carrying the computer market.

Just remember how mush AMD suck back in 2016 lol when happen again.

every current console runs amd apus. amd loves us gamers.

smaller market plus they sell for less. i mean come on, amd clearly appreciates the gaming market. wont be long before amd is synonymous with gaming.

Chad Mulligan Meh, Vega was a clear departure. Perhaps, Navi will change that. But, competing against the RTX cards, where Nvidia is pushing revolutionary gaming-focused tech, will be difficult from a mind-share perspective.

Actually it's not it was a dedicated cpu built to a pcie 16x but intel are working on a proper gpu tho

A lot of people in that boat

Nice, game on bro

Pairing the r3 with 1060 is just an incredibly better decision compared to the i3 with 1050, good decisions bro, I recently went with the same cpu but paired it with a 1070 and it's rocking at my monitor's 1440p!

Can it do 60 fps in most games, including ac origins and other CPU demanding games? My overclocked i5 3550 struggles on most games now...

I bought a used i7 4790k instead and went with the 1070 i got the whole system for 600 dollars

Sire DragonChester it was Ryzen.

I believe the 7nm products coming next year will be very... delightful.

Snetmot Nosrorb Agreed, can’t wait see what AMD bring out. I’m on the fence to get Ryzen 2700 or wait. My old 3770k 3.5 GHz still Gaming fine with GTX 1080Ti, But it’s getting on be 5+ yrs old. So been temped upgrade. Also like the direction amd has been going. Tired of Nvidia anti consumer ways and be interesting see if intel does bring decent gaming gpu of GTX 1080 or better.

Steel and aluminum tariff affects Canada. Oct 1st tariff of 10% import GPU to USA added on, Jan 1st will add another 15%. You will see price of goods from say USA for computers parts soar through the roofs. And the USMCA deal will disallow Canada to trade with other nations on some things.

Wait.. really can you get a rtx 2080ti for only $1700 Canadian, thats insane here the cheapest one i could find is $1966 Canadian

One thing AMD has always excelled at is value. They don't compete at the high-end GPU game, but they have great performance per dollar in the low/mid range CPU/GPU department.

It's Larrabee, isn't it?

Austistic talk. Do not look at the gaming market as a whole, gaming market involves both game creator companies as well as their customers. Talk about personal computing industry vs the B-2-B computing industry. It is quite obvious who pays more, and is eill to pay more. There is no use of having a customer base of millions, if each contributes only 250$ average. The server side computing industry is going to boom like the internet did. And that's a very generous prediction. Do not be salty about that. Willingly or not, you will br paying for cloud gaming services within a decade or two.

@@piyushvaidya5086 Gaming market means customers who buy games, just look up some statistical methodology on market researches about the topic. When I used twice as big I didn't mean twice the number of customers (obviously a B2B buyer pays more as an individual) I meant twice the revenue. "The server side computing industry is going to boom like the internet did" do you have some research data or forecast on this or you just pulling this out of your ass? Do you know that the gaming industry is also booming as well? It's is the biggest entertainment market nowadays. Did the research u based ur assumptions on mentioned that the growth rate of the server side computing industry is greater than the growth rate of the gaming market as well?

@@piyushvaidya5086 btw my original comment compared gaming market to the selfdriving car market. Even if server side computing industry will be bigger in the future do u really think gaming market is not a priority for intel in the present when r&d cost of a gpu is huge? Do you really think they would just avoid todays biggest market when companies wants most out of their investments? Did you know that about 50% of nvidias total revenue is coming from selling gaming products? This is why I still think this video is stupid as hell.

he's simply saying the applications themselves are nonsense, he's not dismissing the demand for innovation the nonsense creates.

@@MuffinTastic They're not nonsense though. They make a lot of sense.

@7deathdragon Even though it's not directly shared with the "common folk" right now, it eventually finds its way there. And you're right that it's not as much as it used to, but it's still happening. These days it goes both ways as well. The military sometimes adapts commercial products because it's so much cheaper. I was mostly ranting about him calling it "nonsense", which I strongly disagree with.

The only reason why some non-military applications were coming from military applications is that they were a byproduct and huge amounts of money went into military funding. This is an extremely inefficient way to invest in non-military technology. It's like making food by giving crop to farm animals to produce milk or meat. It's much, much more efficient to make bread directly from crop. Then you get 10-20 times as much for the same resources. Saying "investing in military for civilian purposes is useful" is like saying you should fight world hunger with meat and cheese because many people actually eat it. You can get useful technology out of incredibly inefficient processes when you invest enough money in those processes.

Trurl, you're partly wrong. Civilian applications from military research is not just a byproduct. Often the very same product finds it's way to the civilian side. One example is ABS, anti-lock brakes. Another is GPS. A third is rocketry and space flight. Regarding the funding, I think we need to differ from time of conflict to peaceful times. During WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War, the research made incredible strides forward. The benefits from the relatively small amount of the war budget that was allocated R&D was amazing. If you look at the Cold War over all, I think you have a better point. But all research needs an incentive. The last 15 years or so, we've made progress - but only in limited areas. The only incentives we have now is that people want a cooler gadget or a faster computer.

Because Nvidia doesn't want to be bought and is happy as a separate company?

because Nvidia is already ahead, and has plenty of money. Why would they sell? Acquisition requires both people to agree

Because money talks folks. You both seem to think of nvidia as a person and not a company. All it takes is the person at the top of Nvidia and Intel to see eye-to-eye on profits for both and agree to a merger and boom, you have a merger.

Except that's not gonna happen because it wouldn't be financially beneficial to nVidia at all, so there's nothing for them to "see eye-to-eye on profits."

Wouldn't be approved in the U.S. might be a factor also.

Nvidia is still draining pockets. But it is hard to think... My children will never have known what Intel was?

Nvidia always wanted to charge Intel money going back to ATI. Nvidia is still innovating. Intel just keeps stamping out the same thing with ~3% improvements. Nvidia is still hitting double digits.

@@abram730 Have you heard of geforce4 NV17?

I had a GeForce4 Ti 4600(NV25) back in the day, why? You talking about Nvidia releasing the GeForce4 MX, that was basically a GeForce2 MX with better memory? Nvidia was shady back then, and did lots of rebranding. Nvidia was rebranding NV80 for the longest time. They started turning around with Fermi and put the pedal to the metal. Now AMD is doing the rebranding and a lot of shady things that don't get reported. I also used AMD CPUs exclusively in hundreds of PC's I built back then. It was usually AMD+Nvidia and Intel+ATI back then. Things would be different now if AMDs CEO was willing to step aside and merge with Nvidia back then. AMD and ATI didn't fit. It was internal war, as a lot of their very talented people were very pro-Nvidia. War as in calling for mass firings at ATI in company wide emails, and leaking ATI's roadmap to Nvidia. It still isn't fixed as the graphics division still cuts their throat on the CPU side.

@@abram730 Abram Carroll They have not gotten better, they simply have eyes watching them. I would not pay 90% more for 45% more performance between generations. They cannot kill AMD at the moment because they need a meaningful patent to infringe and AMD has enough money to survive the strike back that Nvidia wants to pull off. 3dfx and S3 are simply remains picked up by Nvidia, and they are absolutely shameless in throwing companies under the bus. Sgs Thomson was the original manufacturer of Nvidia's graphics card, but as soon as they jumped on TSMC they called them undesirable when the Kryo2 was announced, when they have been using them until the Riva! Not only that, but they advertise tesselation which cripples radeon cards but only pulls Nvidia graphics cards back, they put out arbitrary numbers like Gigarays, but when you actually look at the numbers presented you realised that the Powervr 6xt gr6500 has similar performance which does not explain the inflated prices. Moving to Pascal, the 10 series founders edition had a higher MSRP which had an effect on AIB cards, it made their prices even higher, and I thought it was just a coincidence, but Nvidia was just testing the waters. When the 1080ti was launched, the founders edition was priced quite reasonably, and the AIB cards prices have not jumped. So when Nvidia priced their founders edition at $100 higher, I knew what they're trying to do with this pricing, and lo and behold, the 2080ti prices for AIB cards are astronomical. Nvidia does not do much with their drivers, but many AMD fanboys think otherwise so I don't have much to say on that front. But they know very well that they do not have much leverage with a competitor, so they have to quickly make a profit, even a bit (in terms of a massive company) will do. AMD have nothing to compete, their cards are better in rendering graphics, but they do not have the upper hand in terms of things such as N-body calculations and other Physics. AMD in this quarter sold twice as many CPUs as Intel this quarter and slightly better in revenue, which establishes that they now have a commanding lead as Intel shortages raise prices. Yet they seem to be silent, but when they are silent they emerge, Vega was a flop because AMD could not keep their mouths shut. Nvidia knows very well how to respond to anything AMD has to offer, more CUDA cores. Stream processors just simply cannot cut it. AMD might be toast in the graphics division, and Nvidia will make incremental improvements slowly. The difference between 2011 Intel vs Nvidia today is that in 2011 AMD had nothing, but today Nvidia can still be hit with a new architecture, Vega was just not good enough not terrible it needs improvement not an overhaul. So for now, Nvidia is still keeping all eyes open.

Maybe, but not likely inside consumer computers. They excel at different tasks that the other is unable to efficiently do.

I predict that motherboards in the future will be one solid S.O.C. that controls processing and graphics workloads but will still have DRAM slots, expansion slots and Sata ports.

Cpu use general cores. Gpu cores are massive but they can only compute geometry. Gpus cant do anything else than rendering. The gpu is controlled and directly connected with the cpu.....