Tegra is maybe the most powerful and full-of features ARM CPU around, if they are focusing to create a x86 netbook-like CPU, for internet browsing, light office work, and multimedia with a low power print, they could affect seriously Intel's market share, by creating a winning CPU/chipset combination, or even better, a CPU with embedded chipset for easy integration and low power. But I don't think they could affect in any way, Intel and AMD's market in medium and high performance computing market, at least not for the next 5 years or so....

There's been grumblings of this for a while. They spiked with AMD bought ATi, with industry analysts figuring nVidia might have to do some catching up if the whole CPU/GPU melding direction became lucrative. With AMD pushing the integration envelope, and Intel pushing their own CPU/GPU integrated solutions along, how can anyone complain or doubt why nVidia would want to look at the CPU side of things to remain competitive? Keep in mind, there are massive potentials for this technology, in some of the largest growth sectors of the electronics marketplaces: console games & mobile computing. If nVidia just keeps doing what they've always done, their niche market will get smaller and smaller, as the technology train passes them by.

People seem to be jumping to a conclusion that nVidia is acquiring Transmeta. They'd be getting people who worked for Transmeta, who know the x86 architecture and power savings methods, not the now defunct company. So they wouldn't have the slow outdated clunky transmeta stuff, knowing nVidia it would be shiny and fast.

Something else to consider: nVidia has a big chunk of business in powerful workstations, and parallel processing is becoming exponentially more sought after. Could be that this looking at CPU development might be tied to creating a much more powerful workstation processing product, which is the area that nVidia makes much larger profit margins anyhow.

JieMan has some good points. First of all, I cringe every time I see the word "analyst" in a news title. Another person's opinion. We have lots of those. (That's why I stopped reading TG Daily. Too many opinions, too little news.)

I also think that emulating x86 on the GPU isn't too far fetched. On one hand, all x86 CPU's translate x86 instructions to their own internal opcodes. On the other hand, NVIDIA is moving towards more general purpose cores. DX11 cards already have integer math, shifts, bit field extraction, all useful things for general purpose use. While the current architecture bundles too many operations together to fit the CPU paradigm well, it's probably not too much of a departure to put 4 or 8 such pipelines separately on the chip. You'll get a chip with, let's say, 4 in-order 1.5GHz cores and 4 DX11 pipelines (also capable of CPU use when not running graphics). Quite a nice netbook platform there.

It in theory could work.. but realistically they would have a massive uphill battle to get into this competition and have any chance at all. Real world though I doubt this will happen anytime soon if it ever does at all. Rumors are 'free' after all.

Not in 10-20 years, it is just a matter of time, the pace at which we are advancing is greater then ever and now is the perfect time to merge the two into one die, as both Intel and AMD have successfully made multiple cores, now all that is to be left is to put a couple of those cores on graphics or just take a chip from Nvidia and try to fix that on a CPU.

We need mobility, we need small form factor, we need efficiency and we need processing and display/graphic power, and this need of the consumer market will eventually drive the giants to fulfill it in time...

GPU/CPU integration is upon us and I can't imagine it will be long before this is a reality. If it means getting a smaller, cooler and more efficient machine I welcome it. Most of the things people want to do with a PC is not graphically challenging, it will be enthusiasts and gamers that will want a dedicated GPU. I want a standard form factor for PCs that can be attached to back of a monitor. Upgrading would be changing the motherboard or small chips that can be clipped on and off. Miniaturization should include making smaller card slots for upgrading. It would be nice if laptops of the future had a standard form factor for the different sizes and we could then keep a chassis we are happy using and just replace the internals. Currently it is hard because components have been shrinking every few years but the shrinkage will eventually be small enough that this may be a reality?

Putting them together doesn't help.

Do we really want GPU + CPU 'unification'? I disagree with this eerily universal consensus which says this is the best way to go.

Ultimately, stuff like CUDA, OpenCL etc.. Are supplementary technologies. They are basically frameworks / layers -- like Direct X and OpenGL -- that let developers take advantage of the underutilized hardware in your computer. I really doubt they are intended to replace your 64-bit-extended CISC CPU in any shape or form.

Think about it: It sounds like an upgrade nightmare... but more importantly, we'll lose the specific performance gains of having an actual GPU. This isn't as simple as just slapping a GPU on a CPU and getting the best of both worlds. They have to share the same space.. the same physical architecture... I think that's what most people fail to see.

The reason GPUs perform so well for graphics operations is that they have a specific instruction set and a physical architecture that focuses on just processing graphics. nVidia, ATI etc.. employ a minimalist approach, focusing on achieving more through optimization... even with smaller pipelines, minimal branch prediction, smaller cache and lower frequencies than CPUs. This works well for what they do, which is graphics processing.

However, CPUs are there to do *everything* and thus, master nothing but versatility. Unlike the "more with less" approach GPU manufacturers have been utilizing, over the years CPU manufacturers have tried to do "more with more". They've developed huge caches, massive pipelines and complex brand prediction. It's less efficient, but it has worked well to meet the needs of compatibility and versatility.

We *are* starting see CPUs becoming more simplified -- perhaps the gap between CPU and GPU is closing -- but I really don't see GPUs and CPUs being combined in any reasonable time frame (decades). In order for this to work, the way software is written and compiled for these platforms needs to be completely redesigned.