AMD Responds to Intel's Larrabee Delay
AMD says of Larrabee: "GPUs are hard to design and you can’t design one with a CPU-centric approach that utilizes existing x86 cores."
Over the weekend we learned that Intel has pulled the reins back on Larrabee, the chip giant's supposed answer to the GPGPU question.
Although we already knew that Larrabee wasn't going to be a world beater in the world of 3D gaming, it proposed new thinking that excited game developers and engine programmers such as Tim Sweeney, the mastermind behind the Unreal Engine.
Designing some of the world's best CPUs, Intel's attempt to make a new GPGPU was marred by delays that would have made the product uncompetitive.
We decided to ask AMD for its take on the Larrabee situation, as it's a company that also has to juggle both CPU and GPU development. Of course the story for AMD is different due to the acquisition of graphics specialist ATI.
"From the outset, we have seen Larrabee as further validation of the importance of visual computing. We continue to assert that GPU technology is essential to the computing experience, today and tomorrow," Dave Erskine, Graphics Public Relations of AMD, told Tom's Hardware. "AMD is the technology leader in GPU technology for 3D graphics, video and GPU Compute."
Having both a CPU and graphics market already established, AMD is in a unique position with its integration strategy.
"With only CPU, or GPU, a company is limited in its ability to respond to the needs of the industry," Erskine added. "AMD is the only company in command of both GPU and CPU IP portfolios, and in response to the clear direction of the computer industry we’re bringing CPU and GPU together in Fusion."
Larrabee's architecture was different from today's GPUs because it was based on a Pentium P54C design uses the x86 instruction set. The nature of the design makes Larrabee better suited to the term of the GPGPU – but it's one that AMD doesn't see as the right one to go with.
"It really comes down to design philosophy," said Erskine. "GPUs are hard to design and you can’t design one with a CPU-centric approach that utilizes existing x86 cores."
What does AMD propose instead? Erskine explains, "We’re entering a new era in PC computing and it requires that visual computing technologies drive the pace of innovation. We call this Velocity. AMD Velocity builds on our already established GPU design cycle to achieve a faster pace of innovation than AMD previously achieved with a CPU-only development focus. AMD velocity is designed to deliver performance breakthroughs via teraFLOPS-class GPU compute power in tandem with performance and low-power x86 core options. We expect this will result in a clear, compelling platform differentiation for AMD, and the delivery of the best APU on the market every year."
- Humpday Deals: Last Batch of Specials in 2009
- Windows XP Phone Runs AMD CPU (Specs, Video)
- Enter Tom's Hardware's Top Secret SoCal Contest
- Candy Corn Math: How Our Winners Won
- Intel's Next IGP Slated to Run Sims 3
- Seagate Accused of Stealing HDD Tech
- Digital Version of Prey Sold Out on Steam?
- Chinese Make Ubuntu That Looks Like Win XP
- Firefox 3.6 Delayed; 4.0 in Late 2010/Early 2011
- Freescale Announces 7-inch $200 Tablet Design
- VIDEO: Microsoft's Muscle Controlled Interface
- Toshiba, Gateway Show Off Pine Trail Netbooks
- Apple to Purchase Quattro Wireless for $275m
- Lenovo Launches Curvy ARM-based Smartbook
- Tuesday Deals: January 5th - National Bird Day
- VIDEO: A Quick Tour of Lenovo's X100e
- ioSafe Reveals ''Disaster-Proof'' External SSD
- Gamecore Pipes PC Games to your TV
interesting
Imagine GPU accelerated applications for laptops when they're plugged into the wall and CPU only when on battery power with minimal video acceleration and low power state GPU functionality. Sort of like a math-co-processor on steroids.
Amd pwns
i like seperate cpu/gpu,its too dam expensive as is for high end stuff.
Put it all on one chip and well...$$$$
I suppose someday even RAM and SDD Could all be on one chip.I wonder.
I suppose someday even RAM and SDD Could all be on one chip.I wonder.
That would be a Bad Thing as we won't be able to upgrade individual parts with out replacing the entire box.
That would be a Bad Thing as we won't be able to upgrade individual parts with out replacing the entire box.
Just thinking the same thing...
I suppose someday even RAM and SDD Could all be on one chip. I wonder.
The problem with this is we are stuck on an archaic architecture (x86). Even the latest 64-bit chips are x86-64. The architecture requires the use of a north bridge to access RAM and the south bridge which access the hard drive (through the north bridge). To fit all of this onto a single chip would lead to a headache in production since the dye size would be enormous (leading to a greater lose in production).
System on a Chip processors greatly reduce the bridge required by the processor but they are highly specialized for the system they are implementing.
More on SoC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System-on-a-chip
Shh!!! don't give them any ideas.....
With intel owning the CPU market, its mostly good that its another business area they are not taking over.
Of course Intel is doing very well with their SSDs. Which because they are very good - they are on the top of everyones list.
AMD for me
Interesting points, but it would be nice if the marketing talk was stripped out.
Actually it may be easier to upgrade especially if pricing is competitive. Just pop out old APU and replace with new APU and you have and all in one upgrade. Like mentioned it does remind one of the math coprocessor or front side bus being assimilated into the CPU. For now I assume Fusion will not focus on gamers but 5 years from now we all may be running an APU or two in our rigs. Fusion could be a huge hit in laptops and HTPC.
The problem with this is we are stuck on an archaic architecture (x86). Even the latest 64-bit chips are x86-64. The architecture requires the use of a north bridge to access RAM and the south bridge which access the hard drive (through the north bridge). To fit all of this onto a single chip would lead to a headache in production since the dye size would be enormous (leading to a greater lose in production).System on a Chip processors greatly reduce the bridge required by the processor but they are highly specialized for the system they are implementing.More on SoC:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System-on-a-chip
um...x86 is for the processor only. How about p55 without north bridge? Or how about Phenom with Hyper transport?
I was pretty bummed out when i found out larrabee wasnt happening, But there are still very many things to come in the next few years. Fusion is a facinating concept, excited to see how it performs.
I concur. The big market for the APU's will surely be in the laptop market; possibly HTPC market depending on what they can handle, i.e. HD content in a decent manner.
i don't see it that way - in fact i dare to call "keep them separate" claims silly.
integration is what has brought low prices and high availability of any product (and specially electronics).
memory and memory controller integrated in cpu don't cost much and since part of the cpu, get replaced together with cpu.
just because there is some cache on the cpu, or some flash memory on some new digital camera (just to make point), it does not mean that you cannot add more ram (on computer) or larger storage (SD card for example in case of camera).
for those who don't remember, there was a time where cache was not integrated in cpu. it was damn expensive and often costed more than cpu.
there was time when CD drive needed dedicated controller (before they could attach to IDE for example) and it would occupy mobo slot. aneedless to say it was cluther, with slow performance and high cost.
there was also time when chipset was just that -> collection of few dozens chips (a set) performing only few very basic functions (didn't include modem, serial or parallel port, network card, sound card, hdd or fdd controller etc. - think about what comes in today's moos or the north and south bridge).
my first network card, sound card, modem etc. costed each about same as the CPU of the day. nowdays those things are part of chipset/motherboard just like video output which may not be faster than discrete card but it's good enough for 95% of applications and - it's "free". and just because there is onboard video, nobody says that you can't add another graphic card (or two, or three...).
another thing is with integration, many things can be resolved more efficiently including size, power consumption, foootprint, bandwith etc.
so AMD and Intel, please make my next pc small, size of a dime sounds about right as i would like to carry it around without straining my arm. heck, integrate it into glasses that can double as high definition monitor.
If my money was on one company to successfully pull this off, it would be on AMD. They are the only company to house both sides of the court and they already have the know-how and technology from both sectors to do it. The interesting part will be to see how they manage to marry the two together into one product.
If this was a low cost, low power I can totally see this chip being put into numerous devices. Standardization of the CPU/GPU platform, with a bear minimum of FullHD as with the ION chipset, less board space, and power. There could be no limits to what they put this chip into - microwaves, fridges, etc.
Then again, with Intel displaying their 48-core processor recently perhaps they realised the processor development was a lot further along than expected, making Larrabee somewhat superceded already.
so AMD and Intel, please make my next pc small, size of a dime sounds about right as i would like to carry it around without straining my arm. heck, integrate it into glasses that can double as high definition monitor.
lol, nice point. But if you are afraid of cell phones, do you have any idea how much electrical noise this would make? right next to your eyes? with a high frequency clock? But I do like the idea of integrating more stuff on one chip, if it saves me money.
Just thinking the same thing...
Who says the SSD cant come with an expansion clip for RAM? I can imagine regular desktop RAM being the size of leptop RAM at 4-8 gigs per stick and speeds past 2ghz..... Coupled with 2-8 terabytes of SSD and we can have great computers with 8cores and dual gpu's like larrabee in boards as small as micro atx boards. These can porbably run one floor of a house along with its security, music, vids, tv, electricity, billing, phones, and all the media centric needs a person would need in 5-10 years. I even think 6-8terabytes wil be standard or too little by that time.
i came!
... it's like in StarWars...
If this was a low cost, low power I can totally see this chip being put into numerous devices. Standardization of the CPU/GPU platform, with a bear minimum of FullHD as with the ION chipset, less board space, and power. There could be no limits to what they put this chip into - microwaves, fridges, etc.
Only because they recently bought ATi out. Wait in the next 5 years to see how they fair once their combined SKUs are actually merged, meaning their teams are actually integratedi n making one single product because now AMD is based in several countries like Singapore for example and their company is just running and creating the chips while ATi is just focusing on their GPU's(which are now good btw).
gotta wonder if Intel could have put a hefty down payment on Nvidia with the money they spent on the R&D on Larrabee...
AMD bought out ATI about 4 years ago... the fusion concept is about 3 years old.
Sooner or later, AMD should be able to make a SOC that is good enough for a netbook with Windows7. (System On a Chip) of just the CPU, GPU and Chipset.
ik242:
You make a good point. People should google Commodore64, 128, AppleII or Amiga to see what computers looks likes.
The system board in my OLD C=128 is bigger than my Quad-Core system. And yet its only a computer... but the C128 or Amigas did have Graphics & Audio unlike PCs or AppleIIs.
Some examples (wish this blogged allowed image insertions):
This site has photos - click on the mobo image, which goes over details:
http://www.old-computers.com/MUSEU [...] &c=96&st=1
Commodore 8bit floopy drive (the power supply - almost the size of todays ATX units - is removed. There is a CPU to control the drive) http://www.old-computers.com/MUSEU [...] FDD_s1.jpg
Amiga 1000 motherboard (2/3rd of it - sorry the image IS HUGE)http://www.amiga-hardware.com/download_photos/a1000mbreva.jpg
The 3 gold-looking chips on the left are Audio / Video / Memory&Chipset controller. The BIG chip on right is the 7mhz CPU. The 2 smaller chips are various I/O controllers for Par/Ser/Joy ports.
In 1986, this $1200 computer got you 256mb RAM & a 880k Floppy drive. It included 4096 colors & stereo sound, best gaming PC period. No HD controller or memory expansion. 2mb of RAM in 1986 = $1000 easy. 2 megabytes, not GIGABYTES!
Fixed link to A1000: http://www.amiga-hardware.com/down [...] mbreva.jpg
Other than SLI/CF... why do we need regular size ATX boards? Any PC I work on, uses onboard video (AMD). Only gamers add on a card, otherwise its onboard audio & LAN.
I think for 2010, AMD is going to OWN the GPU market. Nvidia is playing games with us which I am sick of. Re-branding products is PLAIN stupid! It got old with the 8800>9800>GT240 & the 9400>G210 or whatever... now its g 210 > g 310 and its 100% the same part?!
Get a clue Nvidia! The G3xx series should ALL be DX11 parts. Makes things easy. When someone buys an ATI 4000 video card vs a 5000, they know what it can do.
I think it was too bold to think that this design could mix it with the real GPUs in the conventional rendering arean, i.e, what GPUs are desinged specifically to do! HOWEVER, I never expected it to be able to from the start, but was still, and still am, excited by the idea.
It was all about easy access to computing power that was only seen from GPUs, with the x86 instructions. I saw it as basically a really powerful general co-processor, not a gpu, more of a really powerful, ultra threaded cpu, than a GPGPU. and I think there is still reason to release it as another option to GPGPU, because remember, GPGPU is all about doing anything OTHER than GRAPHICS, so not being great at graphics is irrelevant!
I like AMD and they should scrap the ATI brand and go AMD only - Advanced Micro Devices - sounds good. I hope these news makes a big-fat-assed investor to give AMD money so they can design their next CPU/GPU to match and outperform Intel because we \the customers\ need real competition and not the current pathetic situation!
BTW Fusions sounds good but who's gonna develop for it if it is the only platform that supports CPU/GPU computing and Intel doesn't?
I hope AMD cuts a bigger share in the CPU market and NVIDIA enters too.
Three major players in the PC computing world would be great for the customers and the technology.
Then again, with Intel displaying their 48-core processor recently perhaps they realised the processor development was a lot further along than expected, making Larrabee somewhat superceded already.
Intel have displayed 80 cores CPU some years ago - so what? They are actually getting worse
Intel displays those X-core design CPUs because they can. There's no other way to show your might. But nonetheless, it would still be irrelevant until we are able to fully utilize 4 cores. Kudos to AMD/ATI for making the CPU/GPU realm quite competitive.