Intel's 'Larrabee' to Be "Huge"

[falchard]

Intel said screw you to ATI and nVidia, so if it doesn't pan out for them. They are going to be in a world of hurt as not many people will buy their hardware if it cannot game well.

 

[Guest]

Am I missing something? I mean it seems to me the processors are about 2,5 by 2,5 to 3 by 3 CM.

2,5 by 2,5 looks like a regular CPU to me; they're about that size too (or even larger).

 

[Guest]

Let's discuss how these "Larrabee" chips are basically a bunch of Atom processors on a single die, then let's discuss how Larrabee measures up per-core/per-clock to Atom, and then to Nehalem... The Gflops per core/clock are a bit unrealistic for Larrabee, so basically, we will come to the conclusion that Intel is lying through their teeth on these performance claims, and that we can expect less... MUCH less in the real-world... not to mention that everything that makes GPGPU tech hard to implement in real-world code will pretty much still apply to Larrabee, there is still PCIe latency to deal with, and only those apps that truly lend themselves to parallelism are going to benefit.

 

[matt_b]

Intel is trying way too hard on this, they need to simplify things and come back down to earth. The number one thing they need to keep in mind is adopt-ability. If this thing becomes what most sources are saying now that this is going to be a mother to design for, who will want to pick it up and program for it?

I'm all for DirectX being battled head-on, it's about time we have something not tied to/within an operating system (that becomes a standard of course) in order to play a game! OpenGL couldn't do it, hopefully Intel can???

 

[moozoo]

Realize that all 32 cores don't have to be working.
They disable the non-working cores and target the different number of working cores at different markets. Every chip bar the ones with critical faults in shared hardware can be sold.

What Intel is trying to do is amazing. Larrabee is probably 10 years ahead of its time. It isn't just a graphic chip. If anyone can pull this off it has to be Intel.

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]Daeros[/nom]I'll say; 971mm is ~38 inches. The editing on Toms is certainly not what it used to be.[/citation]
Reading FAIL

 

[tuannguyen]

[citation][nom]apmyhr[/nom]I think Tom's measurements of the size are based on flawed assumptions. If Larrabee is not released until 2011 (a full 2 years from now), I strongly doubt they will be producing it with 45nm core. More likley, it will be 32nm core. I'm not going to try to do the math for fear of being powned by the next comment, but I'll go ahead and assume that would shrink the chip by a lot.[/citation]

Keep in mind these aren't our measurements. This data was given to us. We're just reporting back to you.

/ Tuan

 

[pocketdrummer]

Careful, I think Steve Jobs has "Huge" copyrighted...

 

[deputc26]

In fact,we were informed that Larrabee may be close to 650mm square die, and to be produced at 45nm. "If those measurements are normalized to match Nvidia's GT200 core, then Larrabee would be roughly 971mm squared,"

Am I the only one who thinks this makes no sense? does "normalized to nvidias GT200" mean if it were fabbed on the 55nm process? unless I'm totally missing something this could have communicated much better.

 

[deputc26]

OK I just did the math and 55^2/45^2 * 650 = ~971 so I guess that is what was meant. They could have just said "If this was produced on a 55nm process like current gpus then the size would be 971mm^2"

 

[jkflipflop98]

So many doubters. You will see. . .

 

[zerapio]

[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom]Keep in mind these aren't our measurements. This data was given to us. We're just reporting back to you./ Tuan[/citation]
NEVER "just report back to you". That's what crappy sites do: regurgitate information. TH readers expect that their editors check the information and the sources of their news articles. I'm not suggesting that these things weren't done in this case. It just rubbed me the wrong way to read the "we're just reporting back to you" argument.

 

[Andraxxus]

Unless they are able to do RTRT (or something new) with Larrabee it may be on the last place out of the three GPU products.Also the replacing of the DirectX standard will most likely occur if something new and useful is presented.

 

[hannibal]

I am guite sure, that Larrabee is as fast as Intell claims... that is not the problem. the problem is if there will be support for Larrabee programing architecture. As many have said if non DX style programing is needed for real speed, it can be hard to have good results at the beginnig. If the Intell can "make" the support and make Larrabee the platform that is supported by programemers, the Intel may have somekind of "monopoly" allso in graphic market. At this moment, I don't think that they can do it, but in anyway Larrabee is interesting consept that will show what real multicore products will be in the future. Larrabee may be ahead of it's time, but Intel is one of those companies that can take such a risk!

 

[rockabye]

[citation][nom]moozoo[/nom]Larrabee is probably 10 years ahead of its time. [/citation]Some would argue that current tech is 10 years behind where it should be.[citation][nom]Cuddles[/nom]Intel and Graphics go together like Spandex and Fat Women.[/citation]Sounds good to me

 

[neiroatopelcc]

I just don't see intel making anything that will replace directx!

 

[enforcer22]

[citation][nom]cruiseoveride[/nom]Replace DirectX? In Intel's dreams[/citation]

Really it should be anyones dreams. if you think about it DirectX is the only real thing keeping Operating systems like linux from actualy going anywhere as a platform for the mass's. Open direct x and any os is a gaming os (wish a bit of coding of course) MS would have to rethink how it makes windows and really listen to its customer base when everything under the sun can now do what windows can do. like the good old dos days when everyone had a OS that would do everything. Then maybe linux can be everything it failed to live up to decades ago. hell even mac could find its self gaming. Course they would have to convince someone to make them some hardware that isnt twice out dated.

 

[hundredislandsboy]

Going by Intel's history of mediocre attempts to make a competitive GPU, let's not all start jumping for joy just yet. Besides, I wouldn't want Intel to dominate the GPU market unless you guys want to see videocards released that's all hype and little performance for the high prices.

 

[radnor]

971mm2 ? 31.16mm^2 basically. That is a huge cpu. HUGE. Even for a CPU standart that is enourmous. At 45nm none the less.

If you data is true, Larrabee is going to sink real fast. It will more expensive than my PC and will have a bigger carbon-footprint than my 309 GTI (yes it is a car). I'm seeing Eco-freaks demonstrating against Larrabe.

And 2 Years from now ???

 

[sublifer]

[citation][nom]Daeros[/nom]I'll say; 971mm is ~38 inches.[/citation]
That was 971mm^2 which is about 31mm by 31mm which is a little more than a square inch.

That corrected, this sounds a lot like what we've heard from the start, that by the time its released it will be much slower than the current technology (current when its released) I think they'll be lucky to find a markey for it outside of something like gpgpu

 

[gamerk316]

I'm thinking larabee will be competing with S3 for third place on the GPU market.

 

[PrangeWay]

Wow this is gonna be such a big Fail IF it's ever actually released...

 

[tipoo]

" However, in a recent Intel Larrabee slide, Larrabee's rendering architecture was suggested to be a successor to DirectX, possibly replacing the DirectX standard."


OOOH Monopolies at war, this could be fun.

 

[Guest]

Didn't AMD say the Barcelona chip was to be huge as well?

 

[Roffey123]

@ gamerk316

Well if we want to be anal about it, Intel is in fact number one (we have those shoddy integrated graphics solutions to thank) in the GPU market, controlling >50% (I don't remember the excat market share). They just want to muscle in on the remaining percentage that AMD/ATi and nVidia fight over (and fight over well in these past couple of years I add).

In my opinion though, unless Intel come up with some hard data soon - I'd say that Larrabee is a red herring. It's big at 45nm (and won't be a small chip at 32nm I add - about 390mm squared, RV770 at 55nm by comparison is 245mm squared) and it would seem, difficult to program for...anyone suspect a PS3 of the GPU world here?