Intel Larrabee GPU Killer
Thursday, April 3rd, 2008 - 4:15pm
Anyone checked out the hype on Intel's real attempt at squeezing out Nvidia and ATI?
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/02/09/meet-larrabee-int...
Of note is the use of multiple, scalable, standard Intel cores. Thats right, so anyone that can program for Intel CPU's can also program for Larrabee GPU's since its based on x86.
Quote:
Rather than making the traditional 3D pipeline of putting points in space, connecting them, painting the resultant triangles, and then twiddling them simply faster, Intel is throwing that out the window. Instead you get the tools to do things any way you want, if you can build a better mousetrap, you are more than welcome to do so. Intel will support you there.
I am definitely not a fan of Intel's past forays into the GPU market, but the potential leap with this technology could be mind boggling.
I know its hype, but some tech junkies are mentioning that this could be the tipping point were technology advances logarithmically.
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
Intel talked a big game about their GMA X3100 laptop graphics chip as well, about how that GPU would be a serious competitor to AMD and Nvidia's mobile GPUs. While it may actually be nice hardware in theory, Intel's drivers are so pathetically optimized that it in practice it is pretty much useless.
The Larrabee thing looks neat, but I am highly skeptical about Intel's ability (or willingness) to properly support the software end of things.
Xbox Live: CrankyBaby
baggachipz: Who cares about Japan, let them have their silly pointless dog games and countless re-hashes of anime-based dragon princess super lucky crapitty crap.
I hope they won't, but I think that Intel would be able to get away with dropping the ball to some degree. Its x86 architecture so hypothetically there is decades worth of experience, resource material and talent pool to draw from.
The catch is that they are really going to need the huge performance boosts they are claiming in order for the paradigm to shift away from the separate GPU card.
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
The video with intel's Ron Fosner doesn't look that promising as yet... though tech demos are difficult to judge the true power of a chipset anyway.
A blog: by me!
Edit: Thanks for fixing the link Duoae!
Xbox Live: Irongut | Playstation ID: Irongut_GWJ
Haha!
No, for some reason windows or firefox decided to stick with a previous link i linked to in Parallax's thread. I've fixed it now - thanks for the catch!
Linked from engadget
A blog: by me!
Actually that link was a Nehalem demo.
These links are more the route that Larrabee is going for:
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=334
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=506&type=expert&pid=3
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
But isn't Nehamlem going to be combined with Larrabee? Maybe i've gotten confused.
A blog: by me!
Nehalem is the next generation of Intel CPU's after the Penryns.
Larrabee is a GPU using Intel's new microcore processors (mini x86 CPUs that are super scalable from 2 to hundreds if you believe the hype)
I'm sure the tech will merge at some point soon.
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
Very interesting article!
Multiple simple cores, arranged on a super-fast ring bus - sounds like they cribbed a page or two from the Cell architecture.
But, if the units are generic, and memory access both ways is pretty good, this could be used for all sorts of things, not just graphics...
Yeah and at the same time Nvidia is starting to push the use of their gpus to do more than graphics.
I think this sort of thing is interesting as far as mainstream computing goes because there aren't usually dedicated graphics cards in most mainstream laptops and machines. So I can see that if quad-core and eight core cpus become the norm years from now then why not use the extra cores for graphics when you need that capability?
It seems like it would bring computing back to the pre-3d era where every machine was a gaming machine and there would be less concern about compatibility with different hardware.
The guys in the industry like Carmack, Sweeney and heads of companies like Newell do suggest that there's a chance we see pcgaming going to a more homogeneous platform in the future.
My thoughts exactly.
I just hope the upgrade battle doesn't change from "you need a 6600 or better" to "you need at least 16 or 20 micro-cores".
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
... which would be completely at odds with how the PC industry has been carrying on for the past, um, 20 years or so...?
From their press releases, it seems that they will be releasing Larrabee as
- A GPU (on a graphics acceleration card).
- A processor for general-purpose computation, on a card.
- A processor, as replacement for "regular" CPUs.
In the case of the Larrabee-as-CPU, it is important that the instruction set will probably not be an exact match with current x86 CPUs, but a "useful" subset - which means that applications will have to be recompiled. Also, single-threaded performance will probably be an order or two of magnitude slower than regular x86 CPUs - programs will have to be properly parallelized to utilize the power.
I doubt that the Larrabee will be positioned as a replacement for current processors, for the above reasons. Maybe Intel would push it as a standard add-on as part of its chipsets, which will indeed make PCs more PS3-like.
Fedaykin98 wrote:
Aperture Science wrote: