Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel's 'Larrabee' to Be "Huge"

Last response: in News comments
Share
June 7, 2009 8:18:44 PM

Intel's Larrabee will also be a graphic library rivaling Microsoft's DirectX???

Yes! The monopolies at war! The small guys win!
Score
2
June 7, 2009 8:19:49 PM

"...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--hefty indeed."

I'll say; 971mm is ~38 inches. The editing on Toms is certainly not what it used to be.
Score
-27
Related resources
June 7, 2009 8:21:14 PM

bah useless ....
Score
0
June 7, 2009 8:22:17 PM

What happened to "Intel Confirms 'Larrabee' First Half 2010; No Delay"?
Score
8
June 7, 2009 8:24:02 PM

Quote:
We contacted Intel for comment in regards to the above information. Intel denied that any of the above is true.


That train-wrecked my whole train of thought.
Score
7
June 7, 2009 8:46:10 PM

Daeros"...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--hefty indeed."I'll say; 971mm is ~38 inches. The editing on Toms is certainly not what it used to be.


Wouldn't 971mm squared be roughly 31x31mm...?
Score
19
June 7, 2009 9:19:51 PM

And the excitement is fading...
Score
6
June 7, 2009 9:31:15 PM

td854Wouldn't 971mm squared be roughly 31x31mm...?

My thoughts exactly - the readership on toms is slipping a bit recently too..
Score
20
June 7, 2009 9:31:38 PM

New hardware + new software = epic fail
Score
4
June 7, 2009 9:52:17 PM

Hehe. Daeros's strong point isn't math apparently.
Score
4
June 7, 2009 10:01:37 PM

Replace DirectX? In Intel's dreams
Score
7
June 7, 2009 10:06:04 PM

intel intel just stop.... ok stop it now
Score
9
June 7, 2009 10:07:43 PM

dman3kIntel's Larrabee will also be a graphic library rivaling Microsoft's DirectX???Yes! The monopolies at war! The small guys win!

By "small guys" I assume your talking about us consumers. How do we win if game developers have to spend more money and time developing their games to work on two competing standards?
Score
-7
June 7, 2009 10:16:03 PM

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.
Score
2
Anonymous
June 7, 2009 10:20:25 PM

I would just like to say that I was part of that .1% of people who called bullsh1t whenever Larrabee was the "Terascale Project", and they claimed to get 1 tFlop performance out of a 65w, 200million transistor chip... The key to catching these things is to assume that everytime Intel makes a ridiculous claim, that they are just lying to try to sell a product...
Score
-1
June 7, 2009 10:59:30 PM

Called BS too. Intel and Graphics go together like Spandex and Fat Women.
Score
13
June 7, 2009 11:01:50 PM

I'll pre-order it if they change the name to larrabee forever
Score
13
June 7, 2009 11:14:57 PM

hahaha, "Tobe HUGEEE" Now i get it :) ))

anyway by 2011 we`ll have something new and it will be called XCGPU, a 1cm SOI incorporating 60x 495GTX+++ plus 120 8890IceQ9+ in Xfire with 221 i9 Intels and 223 Phenomenom XVI CPUs and will be able to play Crysis at a wooooping 60+ fps on an anti-mater Screen of 80000" diameter. And it only needs 128 SD Ram to work so it`s not a cost burden. Work with a Nokia Power Adapter. Get the optional ThinkPad so you move everything in Windows 9 without moving a muscle. Also recomend a gun to shoot ureself after buying it cause its out of this worlddddddddd.

Score
3
June 7, 2009 11:54:43 PM

I say death to direct X, long live Open GL.
Score
2
June 8, 2009 12:00:37 AM

32 cores @ 45nm , 600+ mm squared sounds about right. Power shouldnt be a problem, but it depends on how high they crank the Ghz.
Im hearing theyll be having trouble with getting the drivers to work in all games, meaning alot of the older games wont work so well.
Doing everything in SW may cost them in some games as well, and itll be interesting to see when their SW resolve wins, and when its alot of latency.
As for the libraries, eliminating DX etc, DX itself is moving away from a HW fixed scenario, so, by then (2011?) , the new DX may be totally library/SW dependent anyways, which coincides with the articles statements, tho, I wouldnt give the credit to Intel here
Score
0
June 8, 2009 12:24:03 AM

Toms Bullshit Hardware - same news bs as the inquirer - who knows what to expect

They fail to mention here that this baby isnt primarily for gaming etc - more scientific/ray tracing etc - alot of extra horsepower to cram into a system/workstation/server
Score
0
June 8, 2009 12:32:08 AM

While this may be true, its cgpu ability may turn out to be huge, tho it wont be alone in that, Intel itself is promoting LRB to be a rendering device, and isnt a true RT HW.
To spend all that money, and sell for just a few niche markets doesnt make sense, since, as I said, they wont be alone to dominate, nor should we discount nVidias and ATI's response in this particular area
Score
2
June 8, 2009 12:44:44 AM

Basically, its the same argument nVidia fans use, but in reverse. Theyll say, its got phsx, gpgpu abilities, but what really matters there, and here is, how well does it play games? Thats the market, and therell be alot more monies to be made there than gpgpu, for now anyways. This could change in the future as we see fusion happen between cpu and gpu tech, but just like MT, it takes time
Score
2
June 8, 2009 1:25:04 AM

I have hopes for Intel on this one, and really hope it pans out.

Intel, please don't epic fail, do a barrel roll instead and crush nvidia. >;)
Score
-4
June 8, 2009 1:29:19 AM

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.
Score
-4
Anonymous
June 8, 2009 1:32:28 AM

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).
Score
0
Anonymous
June 8, 2009 1:37:39 AM

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.
Score
1
June 8, 2009 1:38:40 AM

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???
Score
2
June 8, 2009 2:44:29 AM

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.

Score
0
June 8, 2009 2:47:02 AM

DaerosI'll say; 971mm is ~38 inches. The editing on Toms is certainly not what it used to be.

Reading FAIL
Score
4
June 8, 2009 3:22:19 AM

apmyhrI 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.


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

/ Tuan
Score
1
June 8, 2009 3:55:46 AM

Careful, I think Steve Jobs has "Huge" copyrighted...
Score
5
June 8, 2009 5:30:04 AM

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.
Score
1
June 8, 2009 5:34:15 AM

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"
Score
3
June 8, 2009 5:34:40 AM

So many doubters. You will see. . .
Score
-5
June 8, 2009 6:18:51 AM

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

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.
Score
1
June 8, 2009 7:55:51 AM

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.
Score
0
June 8, 2009 8:56:20 AM

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!
Score
-1
June 8, 2009 9:14:20 AM

moozooLarrabee is probably 10 years ahead of its time.
Some would argue that current tech is 10 years behind where it should be.
CuddlesIntel and Graphics go together like Spandex and Fat Women.
Sounds good to me ;)  :p 
Score
4
June 8, 2009 9:39:38 AM

I just don't see intel making anything that will replace directx!
Score
2
June 8, 2009 10:03:32 AM

cruiseoverideReplace DirectX? In Intel's dreams


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.
Score
3
June 8, 2009 10:14:16 AM

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.
Score
1
June 8, 2009 10:54:34 AM

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 ???
Score
0
June 8, 2009 11:11:56 AM

DaerosI'll say; 971mm is ~38 inches.

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
Score
0
June 8, 2009 12:52:05 PM

I'm thinking larabee will be competing with S3 for third place on the GPU market.
Score
0
June 8, 2009 1:21:16 PM

Wow this is gonna be such a big Fail IF it's ever actually released...
Score
0
June 8, 2009 1:45:27 PM

" 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.
Score
1
June 8, 2009 1:46:11 PM

Didn't AMD say the Barcelona chip was to be huge as well?
Score
0
June 8, 2009 1:53:49 PM

@ 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?
Score
1
!