Well, it looks pretty obvious that the real clash it yet to come - Larrabee is indeed just a PowerPoint slide up to now. But, with all this recent confrontation between the Blue and Green giants, I doubt that the Green ones will get a QPI licence to manufacture chipsets for Nehalem.
And their market share isn't very promising.
Yet, with all this multi-core and many-core marketing, what if you could encode your video 10-20x faster with your Nvidia-based Card than with your Quad-Core?
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/04/14/nvidia_analyst_day_-_biting_back_at_intel/4
Oh, and there's still the PhysX thing within GeForce's heart:
Maybe next time I'll feel like buying a GeForce GTX instead of a dozen-cores CPU. What about you?
And their market share isn't very promising.
Yet, with all this multi-core and many-core marketing, what if you could encode your video 10-20x faster with your Nvidia-based Card than with your Quad-Core?
One software application that was shown off during the Analyst Day was RapiHD – a video encoder designed to run on the GPU using CUDA. Sam Blackman, CEO of Elemental Technologies, the company behind RapiHD, showed a GeForce 8800M GTS running an h.264 video encode completing around 10 times faster than a quad-core Intel CPU. The software will be available in August or September and will be price competitive with current video encoders – expect it to be around $50 US for the standard version.
Nvidia Analyst Day: Biting Back at Intel
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/04/14/nvidia_analyst_day_-_biting_back_at_intel/4
Oh, and there's still the PhysX thing within GeForce's heart:
In order to demonstrate the physics horsepower of the GeForce 8800/9800 series, Hegde took aim at Intel's eight-core Nehalem particle demo, which can be seen in one of our IDF articles. While Intel's Nehalem demo had 50,000-60,000 particles and ran at 15-20 fps (without a GPU), the particle demo on a GeForce 9800 card resulted in 300 fps. If the very likely event that Nvidia's next-gen parts (G100: GT100/200) will double their shader units, this number could top 600 fps, meaning that Nehalem at 2.53 GHz is lagging 20-40x behind 2006/2007/2008 high-end GPU hardware. However, you can't ignore the fact that Nehalem in fact can run physics.
Tom's Hardware
Maybe next time I'll feel like buying a GeForce GTX instead of a dozen-cores CPU. What about you?