Some Information on Larrabee...

Full Article here:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13512_3-10006184-23.html

Not looking good...

Amd4Life!!

To bad everyone else is enjoying the 4.0 club while your stuck at 2.0 Thunderman.

In other words, it won't be much different from all of Intel's previous stabs at GPUs. Oh well, no surprises here.

Wow. I love how they are judging something that no one has even gotten their hands on.

Its too slow: Um basing it on what you THINK does not work buddy

Too expensive: Predicting the prices on something 1+ years away.... yet hes not rich from the stock market

Too Hot: Lets see.... CPUs run on average 30c idle and 50-55c load (a quad @ 3GHz). GPUs now a days run at about 50c idle and 70c+ load....... And GPUs use much more power than CPUs.

Obviously Peter Glaskowsky is a technology genius. I mean thats why he works for IBM or Intel/AMD instead of CNet (which is a website).......

Sorry but this guy is an idiot. He is judging something without even being able to get his hands on it. He acts like he knows what he is saying but if this were true he would be working for them helping them make something.

Here is another way to look at it: Larrabee may not look good on paper to you Mr Peter Glaskowsky but it could be good in practice. Just look at AMDs Phenom. Looks great on paper but in practice its not as amazing as the paper said.

another thread that should die a sudden death.

I think this thread is fine. I think that the articles author is full of BS since everything hes putting here is opininated and based off of paper which we all know you cannot trust paper.

Hey don't forget who the poster is, Old hit and run Thunderdud himself. Too bad he didn't get the post from the same article who posted from about the author being totally wrong in what he was saying about Larrabee and how easy it will be to work with such a processor.

"by rauxbaught August 5, 2008 6:09 PM PDT As a long-time professional graphics programmer (who doesn't work for Intel), I can assure you that you are completely missing the point.

But before I get into that, let me correct a few complete fallacies in your article:
- There is no "reuse of information" across frames in video games. They took spaced out their samples because neighboring frames tend to be very similar. They wanted varying data points to determine the effect of varying loads on the various subsystems, and measure the scaling of the system as they add extra cores -- not to do sustained throughput measurements.
- Running multiple threads on a single core in in-order processors is generally done to cover memory latency. (This is different from out-of-order processors, which can have many more sequential instructions in flight at once, and use complicated logic to keep as many units as possible busy.) Hyperthreading in this case therefore increases the practical throughput of the system, since it's designed for parallelism instead of single-stream throughput.
- The use of 1Ghz cores was used to keep the math simple. (As was mentioned in the paper.) As far as we know, they could be using cores that run 2-3 times that frequency. (Or even half, for that matter...) Considering we don't know the frequency or the core count of their final hardware, comparing it to 2 year old hardware from nVidia is far from meaningful. (Thus making your claim that they won't be competitive very premature.)
- Binning (similar to previous techniques such as tiling) reduces the memory bandwidth to the framebuffer, not the polygons. If you'd read the paper, you'd see that their analysis indicates a significant memory bandwidth advantage over forward rendering, and memory bandwidth often predicts performance in graphics. As a side note, their algorithm is actually slightly different from traditional tiling techniques, which is presumably why they used different terminology.

Now, as for completely missing the point: They implemented everything in software. The very fact that they could contrast an immediate mode renderer against "binning" is a testament to how important Larrabee is as a paradigm shift. The performance balance of graphics development is currently determined by the hardware manufacturers. This has side effects like flat-shaded polygons being completely bound by numbers of rasterization and blending units. This means it's quite easy to put together a workload where more than half of the GPU is completely idle. Making the entire pipeline completely software-driven puts control of these decisions in the hands of developers.

Performance aside, having a software rasterization pipeline means the flexibility to set up whatever is desired. I've wanted fully programmable blending for 5 years. Now I can have it! Sending data back and forth across the bus taking too long? Process it all on the GPU! All of these things may be possible on current hardware using GPGPU programming techniques, but this is the first hardware that's designed for generality FIRST. That makes it a pretty big deal on its own, even if it's not the fastest chip on the block. "

[i]

Here we go again...


How can you shout about this when the Phenom is the most disasterous release of a processor and looks like bringing AMD to its knees... No other processor has bought a company to its knees like this one..


You and your motley crew shout about the Intel duffers but what about your famous Another Major Duffer of Duffers.


Im sorry Thunderman, but just your name alone winds people up because of the way you present your posts..


Just post the news, dont put up AMD4Life ( at this rate they wont be 6 months but thats by the by ), and on top dont keep putting "not looking good" on anything that Intel is doing or pioneering ( yes Larrabee is pioneering as no one has done what they are doing. Even Intel have proven not to get it right ( Pentium 60 & 66 anyone ) when AMD are so far from looking good that looking good dont appear in their research portfolio...

I am also amazed at Hector Ruiz stand down to be put somewhere else in the company which has just as more power as his previous mess-uptial.. He should be totally removed from the board and given a 9150 for his troubles...

I know that most ic designers have their work scattered around the house for ornaments in plastic resin but I bet even AMD engineers dont have a Phenom silicon in their collection.


Then you and your bedroom buddies will give minus scores because you can give out minus scores down to tht fact of your bitterness of anyone that states what you and your single track minded clan are.

Alright, Larrabee will be slow, hot and expensive.

Lets recapitulate so we don't get lost in translation here. What do we really know ? Nothing.
It can be a PR trick. Or it will revolutionize the industry. We just can't be sure.

I am a DAMMIT fan. But i don't see the purpose of this thread.

i no intel gets everithing right at the first attempt and everithing.......but doez any1 think that there is a veeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyy little chance that intel's gpu might be a flop.......

plz don gang up on me now!!!!!

nothing of interest here ... move along now ... keep to the left please.

WTF?? More of this stupid FUD and Rating War??


Lock this garbage, please.

Love the ostrich mentality of many in here.


Problem: Some (more) evidence presented that Larrabee might be bad.

Action: Ignore evidence and attack the poster that presented evidence.




It has been under discussion for some time in the GPU forum just how good Larrabee will (or will not) be.



Fudzilla reported ages ago Intel had a 300W power envelope for Larrabee Mk.1.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php? [...] &Itemid=34


We know the x86 will not be as tailored to massive parallel vector computations as something designed specifically for the job (otherwise GPUs would already be using an approach much closer to CPU design).



Fudzilla also reported on the PCB required for larrabee, and the amount of layers it needs - 12 (larrabee) versus 8 or less (ATI/Nvidia).

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php? [...] &Itemid=34




All the indicators are pointing in the one direction. Ignore it if you wish.

No Intel does not get everything right on the first try. If they did they would have had a IMC since the 486 and up.