Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [dvHW] Intel Larrabee has 32 Pentium-based cores?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[dvHW] Intel Larrabee has 32 Pentium-based cores? - Page 7

post #61 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman View Post
I couldn't find this video again, it wasn't labelled 'Larrabee' with big letters, it was mentioned as a by-note 'can we use the L word' kind of thing. They don't advertise or talk about Larrabee a whole lot yet.

edit - I found it: http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/v...e.aspx?fn=1515
Thanks for finding that video, I just got done watching it.

The interesting thing is that it seemd as if the main thing that they were determined to push was freedom for the developers. What I get out of it is that they want a highly parallel architecture that's more programmable than current GPUs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
Yeah, basically they're lying. Better go get the dust off that tin foil hat.
I don't think that I would call it lying. Sure right now they're talking about "visual computing", but that was hardly mentioned at all when the Larrabee project was announced. They can claim that it was designed for graphics without really lying, but at the same time not necessarily telling the truth either: They designed the architecture to handle highly parallel workloads efficiently. Graphics processing generates highly parallel workloads. So indirectly, they really can say that it was designed for it without it actually being the purpose behind the creation of the project.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
I'll reserve my judgement until they refer to it as a SPARC/Cell competitor. Currently all it's been about is 'visual computing' (fancy name for graphics) and games, so I'll just assume that.
What they're doing when it comes to talking about Larrabee is quite strange. Sometimes they will talk about revolutionizing games, while other times they simply ignore it. If we go back to what was coming out about Larrabee in 2007, it doesn't seem as if gaming was very important:
Quote:
Intel moved on to its "Larrabee project," which is widely expected to be a discrete graphics processor for games. The firm was surprisingly quiet, though, seemingly taking care not to mention games. Instead, Intel stated that Larrabee-based hardware "will include enhancements to accelerate applications such as scientific computing, recognition, mining, synthesis, visualization, financial analytics and health applications."
Techreport

At another Intel presentation in March 2008, Intel had this to say:
Quote:
However, Smith did disclose that Intel has added a new vector instruction set to the Larrabee core. Vector instructions are typically used to improve graphics and media processing. Although Smith declined to be drawn on the details, it's like the new instructions are designed to boost Larrabee's rasterisation performance. Rasterisation is currently the dominant form of real-time 3D graphics rendering on the PC.
Techradar

But, in May I remember reading this:
Quote:
The high-end Larrabee is not intended for desktop usage though, but as server acceleration of some sort. We will just have to wait and see exactly what. The bits we know about the multi-core architecture so far tell us that it can be used for a variety of things, not just graphics.
NordicHardware

My point is that the information that has come out and still is coming out about Larrabee isn't even consistent about what it actually is. If Intel can't even be consistent when talking about Larrabee, then why should I believe that it was designed specifically for games? The impression that I get is that they wanted to build a highly parallel architecture, and then sometime along the development they realized that while they were at it, they might as well tack on graphics support. I could be wrong, but until I see a product that shows otherwise, I just don't think it looks like gaming graphics was the focus for Larrabee. The HPC market is where they need to defend themselves against GPGPU threats from Nvidia and AMD, it wouldn't make sense for them to design a gaming-focused highly parallel architecture. Why target where AMD and Nvidia are strong while Intel is relatively weak (gaming graphics performance) instead of targeting the area where AMD/Nvida's GPUs are weak (CUDA/CTM vs x86 subset)?
Edited by darkcloud89 - 7/6/08 at 5:15pm
post #62 of 63
Yeah but it all doesnt really matter about the Tf does it??

the r700 is 2.4 tf and the gtx 280 isnt even 1 but the gtx 280 is faster than the r700 is it not??

lets wait and see haha
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E4400@3.5 24/7 1.4v Gigabyte UD3P 8800 GTS 512 Corsair xms2 1:1 389 DDR2 4-4-4-12 2.0v 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 1Tb black SAMSUNG DL DVD Burner SATA Windows Xp Samsung syncmaster 204b & dell 17' 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Corsair 750Tx CM 690 Logitech laser wireless 
Mouse Pad
My dad's company's logo 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E4400@3.5 24/7 1.4v Gigabyte UD3P 8800 GTS 512 Corsair xms2 1:1 389 DDR2 4-4-4-12 2.0v 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 1Tb black SAMSUNG DL DVD Burner SATA Windows Xp Samsung syncmaster 204b & dell 17' 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Corsair 750Tx CM 690 Logitech laser wireless 
Mouse Pad
My dad's company's logo 
  hide details  
Reply
post #63 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffmizrahi View Post
Yeah but it all doesnt really matter about the Tf does it??

the r700 is 2.4 tf and the gtx 280 isnt even 1 but the gtx 280 is faster than the r700 is it not??

lets wait and see haha
R700 is the dual gpu version of RV770. R700 puts out 2.4TFLOPs RV770 puts out just over 1.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [dvHW] Intel Larrabee has 32 Pentium-based cores?