This article is SO BADLY WRITTEN it should be pulled and redone immediately. Here I go:
Para 1. The "sharing the die 'til we die" quip is irrelevant, and confusing. To me, it hints at a future technology where IC chips will no longer be on a die. But it even starts badly with "earlier...", what came before?
para 2. No it isn't obvious, latency can be concelaed, for example with enough GPU's comms sould be occuring with one while set up for another happens. The final sentence is meaniningless. "Merely coherent memory...?"
para 3. I'll concede a pass on this one, but barely.
para 4. I doubt many people know much about Alpha, there is certainly no explanation of what architectural feature of this chip is relevant to the article. I knew the Alpha well and cannot see the point.
para 5. "amdatigpu"? A heading gone wrong perhaps, or a failure to speak English.
para 6 & 7. needs graphics and a less hasty attempt to explain what the author has in mind. SLOW DOWN, use the words necessary to express your point and think before you write.
para 8 & 9. A dramatic shift from AMD to Intel's future technology, again needing graphics and more depth, plus probably a heading to handle this segue. Or do yu know what a segue is, I only learned last year, so you can be forgiven that, but only that.
This could be a very good article, but for now it I would wipe my butt with the paper it was written on.
Comment made about the PC Authority article:
An analysis of CPUs and GPUs?
Will AMD blow its lead again in graphics? An analysis of the current state of play in the race for processor and graphics superiorityWhat do you think? Join the discussion.