Why not CPU's to do graphics processing?

[magellan]

Considering how powerful CPU's are getting and how many cores they have, why not push graphics processing back on the CPU again? Or at least a greater percentage of graphics processing?

 

[Efonzerellie]

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

 

[EarthDog]

Do you know how many 'cores' a GPU has? You can look at the specs of modern AMD and NVIDIA cards to get an idea. Those are more specialized to do graphics processing anyway. A CPU with its few cores just doesnt have enough horsepower to put up the graphics.

 

[Johan45]

It's also a matter of memory bandwidth.The DDR3 setup on mobos can't handle much more in the way of a more powerful APU. If AMD wants to continue improving their on die graphics they're going to have to convince Mobo manufacturers to incorperate on board VRam similar ti the new PS4.

 

[Automata]

Considering how powerful CPU's are getting and how many cores they have, why not push graphics processing back on the CPU again? Or at least a greater percentage of graphics processing?

Normal processors can do any type of task the system needs, meaning, they aren't specialized. Graphics processing requires floating point operations, and lots of them. You can do graphics on the processor, but with as little throughput as it has, it wouldn't be very fast.

On the other hand, graphics cards are extremely specialized floating point processors by sacrificing the ability to do other operations. They have hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of cores per card and these cores are still fast on their own. Graphics processing is highly parallel, meaning it can use all these cores at once. There has been a move to putting the graphics back in the processor, but they are literally integrating the graphics chip into the processor chip. These solutions aren't aren't as fast due to heat and space issues.