Heres more hype for hope from Intel http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/602 [...] story.html Either theyre really worried, or this is just getting too funny . One thing, familiarity breeds contempt. He sounds like Jen-suns lil bro heheh. Makes Hector look good

Geez can people stop predicting the future?

In all fairness, its a shame this kind of talk has to happen. x86 isnt going to be the end all either. The Khronos group will decide this. If people want to use their apps with whats current, theyll have to use CAL or CUDA, which some already are, and theres more lined up to do so. Short term, Gelsingers wrong, long term, hes wrong again more than likely. Until theres acually something out from Intel, its just talk. Meanwhike, CUDA and CAL are actually here, and doing things, real things. Will there be a better approach? More than likely, will it be x86? No. But, all this talk, it sounds like AMD , when they dont have their quads out yet. This doesnt make Intel look good. Someone should grab Pat and pull him asside.

Then Intel flex's it's compilers, profilers, marketing, education, and software partners and ya CUDA and CAL just dissapear.

Word, Playa.

And every app thats gone in that direction , and every person who bought them, and uses them, they go away too? And the companies too? No big deal right? Flex, grumble, snort......its not going to help nor stop whats already taking place, and only hurt. Intel isnt getting it, and they still dont have it. Til they do, it looks like Hector to me

I was going to post that for you, jaydee. Hahaha. Well...

Honestly, that's not worse than the green "can of whoop-ass" thing. Nvidia is having problems even with the fallen - not at all - ATI by now. As I said in another post, you simply can't compare the "market share" of x86 vs CUDA capable GPUs (especially with the super-mainstream-CUDA-capable-GTX 2XX pricing). Even if you could do something 10x faster with CUDA, why would you bother with, hmm, ergh, 15%-20% of the market who own a GeForce 8 or above? Of course you would bother if you take some "specific market segments" into consideration, but I still can't see much of a benefit for the average desktop user. Sorry, but even Photoshop and a simple video-encoder aren't enough for that. The promises have been around for too long.

Larrabee: maybe it'll wipe out the floor with every GeForce and Radeon ever made or maybe it won't. If it's better than anything else, shouldn't we go for it? I just don't care if it's Intel's or not. I'm sure people will also think this way when they look at the benchmarks.

Soon we'll have mainstream Nehalems - just as we'll have CPUs with 8 cores. Would the benefit of using CUDA be so great in that scenario? I don't think so, but that's just my 2 cents.

I am laughing more at the people who posted responses. Intels idea sounds good in theory and if Larrabees vector engine works good it will add a nice twist to the GPU arena (and maybe we wont have to pay an arm for a nVidia card).

But the people were stating that the GTX280 whoops the 4870....from what I saw it wasnt all that different and for the price, I think the 4870 has a better chance this round.

One talked about the shader and how nVidia has 256 compared to Larrabees 8 and 16.....does he even realize the difference?

People amaze me. I for one don't see CUDA as a viable replacement for the CPU. It may get a little market niche but thats it.

Dude, I almost created an account just to flame that one.

Yeah. That's my vision too.

We arent talking a 100% increase, we arent talking 60%, in some apps we are talking 1000% increase, so doubling something that is already much slower than we we have isnt getting there. The cpu isnt the way to do certain things. Period. Traditionally they have, and its been nothing but promises, hints, rumors. Not any more. The promises of gpus are real, and here. The traditional useage of cpus for encoding are history, no longer adequate, nor needed. Those special apps, like the super computers, various medical uses etc, theyll never go to a cpu direction until theres actually something more than , rumors, promises and hype, which at this point, is all Intel can actually give us. The shoes on the other foot, and its Intel that has to come thru, quit talking, and start doing. Until I see it, its just rumor and hype

Dont think AMD is going to sit still either. And dont think the G200 series is the only capable gpu to use CUDA more effectively than any cpu out there. Seems to me any 8xxx series or newer uses CUDA. And Brooke+ is a very viable option as well. By the time anything Intel actually puts out anything, both will have a decent start in many apps, both wide use and narrow use

Thuink of it this way. Someone who does a ton of encoding sees Pat Jen-suns comments, and instead of getting that app thatll save him 300% or more in time/usage, he just has to wait, and wont use it, cause Pat said so. Yea right

I don't see why you are getting all up in arms over Pat's comments. So he said that CUDA wouldn't last, and that Larabee will be AI based, easily programmed using existing x86 instruction sets.

Why get so upset? So, if CUDA takes off, that will be Intel who will need to play catch up. You act as though he has the power to just make CUDA or CAL fade away.

Why not just wait and see just how good or bad Larabee is before jumping to conclusions?

What has CUDA given *us* - desktop users - so far? Do *we* - desktop users - need to do what super computers do?

Also, If I remember Anand's "preview" about the CUDA video-encoder, they couldn't even tell what were the quality settings used, since they were locked. Also, I remember the article saying that the video-encoder was CPU dependant too. If it encodes 1000x faster with 10x less quality then I don't care about it.

If a Nehalem Octo-core can do the same encoding 10x slower but can do 100.000 other things better - or simply only it can do - then I also don't care about CUDA.

Until we see a Badaboom video-encoder final release or any other CUDA capable desktop software they're just rumor and hype. Period.