[citation][nom]nelson_nel[/nom]I'm usually not that excited to give a single company more expansion of it's already titan market share, but that's just me.[/citation]
Who, Intel? I didn't know they had a large percentage of the Discrete graphics market share.
I don't remember anytime this decade I read about the lastest Intel card.
[citation][nom]nelson_nel[/nom]It's worth while to take a wait-and-see approach, but I doubt I'll jump on this band wagon.[/citation]
Excitement and blind faith are two different things. Obviously, it could turn out to be crap, but it interests me at this point.
so current larrabee won't break performance records.
still, if it will be considerably cheaper / cooler / less power-hungry / better scaling, well, it might still be something to get excited about. even if only a little.
Okay seriously, the same performance as the gtx285, now that has to be seen to be beleived, and if it is the case, then intel have really made significant headroom in the Graphics R&D department and with sustained developement can become competitive, but I still take this with a pinch of salt!
[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom]Who, Intel? I didn't know they had a large percentage of the Discrete graphics market share.I don't remember anytime this decade I read about the lastest Intel card.[/citation]
Discrete? No. Last I checked, however, Intel did have almost 50% overall graphics chip market share, due to their cheap integrated solutions and the rise of netbooks.
Anyways, I'm excited for Larrabee, if for nothing else than to provide some more competition to cause nvidia/AMD to create even better cards.
My biggest hope for Larrabee is almost linear scaling in multi "gpu" scenarios, I mean, i really sucks when you pay 2 times the money for a sli or crossfire setup and you get just 1.2 or 1.5 times the performance (sometimes even worse).
Also, if Larrabee it's at leat mildly successful (specially in the power consumption and size areas) it might push Nvidia and ATI to deliver a better (in the "more innovative" way) product.
In conclusion, high hopes here, in many areas too.
[citation][nom]seboj[/nom]Discrete? No. Last I checked, however, Intel did have almost 50% overall graphics chip market share, due to their cheap integrated solutions and the rise of netbooks.[/citation]
I know that, my point was, no one buys intel graphics solutions. OEMs buy them. And they're only meant for the most basic of tasks. Intel doesn't hold any of the market for people that work with graphics.
It'll be a win for Intel if they can provide a similar card that's either cheaper, more efficient, or cooler, as it will gain them contracts - And any contract taken away from AMD / Nvidia is a win for Intel.
We wont know until people have these in their hands to test. Dont expect Intel to say "it has the power of a GeForce2 for 85 dollars" when it sounds better to say "it is currently only capable of performance levels similar to Nvidia's GeForce GTX 285". The important question here is are they talking about gaming performance or some synthetic benchmark. Some cards tear up 3DMark but don't deliver but meager performance over much cheaper solutions.
Like anyone else, I welcome more players in the game that bring good products. We really only have two choices right now but both deliver good products so we cant go wrong. Intel has to come in this swinging or interest will evaporate quickly.
"that's suppose to blow the water out of everything in the market"
This might be better phrased as:
1) "that's suppose to blow everything in the water out of the market"
2) "that's the market this is suppose to blow water on everything"
3) "that's the water that is suppose to blow the market for everything"
i predict, larrabee can be a cheap alternative and won't give exciting gaming performance especially when you consider the difficulty in making good Drivers.
what's exciting is how it can vastly improve various applications especially in the server and workstation markets.
My problem here is that Intel is getting into the GPU market at all. They already have a dominating share of the CPU market, and my fear is that Intel could write out support for GPU's other than their own on their platforms chipsets.
It wouldn't happen initially, no if Intel did that they'd be attacked from all sides. Instead Intel may try and slowly leverage out the other chip makers in the business. AMD and ATI are two sides of the same coin, so they can continue to compete, but they are already on the ropes from the stiff competition from Intel and Nvidia. Once Nvidia chips can only run on AMD platforms, its short work for Intel to push AMD off the map too.
Something needs to happen here. Intel already has the ability (although they haven't exercised it) to become a true monopoly, the reason they haven't took the steps to see AMD immediately goes out of business is because if they did they fear regulatory response. But just because they are taking a slower route to pushing all other chipmakers out of the market doesn't mean they aren't trying to push other chipmakers out of the market.
I'm glad that Intel has provided such good, low cost components in recent history, but that can change the moment AMD closes its doors. The near future is bright, with more competition leading to better prices and performance, but the future of 5 to ten years from no is getting dark.
I agree with the poster above....if its as fast as a GTX285 and uses much less energy and produces much less heat, I wouldnt mind owning one when it comes out.
Its like the PVR2 when it came out....used much less power, made much less heat, was competitive but couldnt match the top GPUs at the time. By the time Larrabee *should* be out, this might be the same situation. Assuming, of course, that it does indeed use much less power and generate less heat.....
[citation][nom]zodiacfml[/nom]i predict, larrabee can be a cheap alternative and won't give exciting gaming performance especially when you consider the difficulty in making good Drivers.what's exciting is how it can vastly improve various applications especially in the server and workstation markets.[/citation]
That was what I was looking towards.
8/16/32/48 cores, whatever it is, will be awesome. Need to make a new disney movie? Get 512 cores and run it.
I know that it isn't intended to be a multi core for normal computing use, but would it be usable for a server where you might want, say, 32 1ghz cores. Distributed computing on a single computer. I hope it can be adapted to that.
I've heard that these are only 32-bit cores, is that true?