Evidently you were wrong. Kaby-G is in FACT a semi custom Radeon discrete mounted on an EMIB (Intel's word for Interposer). It also is for the thin gaming notebook market which is rather surprising but not completey!! You see while the US gaming market is focused or obsessed with desktop performance; overseas markets especially in the pacific rim use laptops for gaming as they are economical. Folks in those markets just do not have the disposable income that western markets have.
I never once said in my post that "people will be able to pick off the shelf and build systems around themselves. " You made that up all by yourself. Don't put words in my text.
You missed my point completely. AMD is likely intending to sell Intel dGPU silicon that Intel can place on an Interposer along with an Intel server CPU.
This would not impact AMD APU sales as it is not the same thing. AMD is doing the very same thing with it's exascale Tarnhelm and Naples for the Chinese server market.
However it also does not mean that a dGPU would not be placed on an Interposer with HBM and a CPU for workstation uses.
AMD has remade itself into a graphics company that happens to sell x86 CPUs and APU's rather than a CPU company that happens to sell GPU's.
This is a huge difference. AMD is not going to turn it's back on dGPU sales to Intel as Intel has 95% of the server market. The best AMD can hope for server penetration is maybe 5% growth. However it makes a hell of a lot more sense to sell dGPU for servers to Intel as now AMD not only has penetration into a new market but that is a hell of an endorsement for the Radeon Tech.
Fair enough, from what Bennett was saying in the thread it didn't seem like he was expecting it to be something for the server space.
Still, if it is going to be as you say it's still not going to be a Kaby Lake processor you'll be able to buy and drop into your gaming rig. Which is the thrust of the story - this AMD/Intel collaboration isn't going to be a chip for the general PC upgrade market.
If it were that would be creating competition for themselves which they've said they won't do when licensing out IP.
I'm not disputing a closed, on-die solution, closely integrating the GPU and CPU silicon in a way that they can be accessed interchangeably by the system would be faster than simply tacking a graphics chip onto an existing package, but I can't see AMD willing to let that happen in a space they already operate in.
Given Intel's historic dominance of the CPU space that would result in unnecessary competition for their Raven Ridge chips, competition they would've then helped foster.
My contention is that this is not going to result in a hybrid Core/Radeon chip that people will be able to pick off the shelf and build systems around themselves. It's a chip that's more likely to occupy a segment of the tech market where the RTG won't be in competition with AMD in a wider context - hence dropping it into a closed system like a Mac or a sealed HMD.
give them time, it's still new and Nvidia can do way more with software fixes to help performance than AMD ever has, so I would just give it time as they will likely still be working on perfecting the drivers since Nvidia has always been about the software support and it's the reason Geforce cards have nearly always been more power efficient as AMD just went for brute force.
Asynchronous Shader Pipelines and Asynchronous Compute Engines is hardware IP.
NVidia tries to implement it likely they will be sued.
NVidia is also not a member of HSA. Async SP and compute engines are both derived from IP shared by HSA members. Of course actual hardware implementation of the standard is AMD intellectual property.
It would serve NVidia right to get sued. They like to sue everyone else!!