Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel's 'Larrabee' to Be "Huge"

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 68 comments

Earlier in the week, we posted about Intel's Larrabee GPU and its future-looking performance.

This information comparing Larrabee to Nvidia's GTX 285 was preliminary, and given to us by a company close to Intel and Nvidia. After posting, we received more information on what Larrabee could shape up to be from one of Intel's very close and large partners. The following information should be taken as "current-known" information, and may very well change when Intel ships Larrabee.

According to current known information, our source indicated that Larrabee may end up being quite a big chip--literally. 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," said our source--hefty indeed. This is of course, an assumption that Intel will be producing Larrabee on a 45nm core.

Our source also indicated that Intel is looking to ship Larrabee two years later, putting us in summer of 2011. Of course, by that time, we will have GPUs that are 2 to 4 times faster than current GPUs from both AMD/ATI and Nvidia. However, at that time Larrabee may not be what it is today either.

One critical point we were told was that 1st and 2nd generation Larrabee GPUs will not be compatible with 3rd generation Larrabee. This is of course, highly speculative and very far out. According to the data, Intel's 3rd generation part will have an emulation mode for backwards compatibility. If this is true, then developers would have a hard time programming for Larrabee.

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

Despite the above red-flag, there's an assumption that Larrabee will have to be compliant with Microsoft's DirectX, which will make it compatible with any existing technology on the application level. Games and application would be programmed for DirectX and not coded at the GPU level. However, in a recent Intel Larrabee slide, Larrabee's rendering architecture was suggested to be a successor to DirectX, possibly replacing the DirectX standard.

Image: courtesy of www.pcgh.de

Display 68 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 20 Hide
    stuart72 , June 7, 2009 9:31 PM
    td854Wouldn't 971mm squared be roughly 31x31mm...?

    My thoughts exactly - the readership on toms is slipping a bit recently too..
  • 19 Hide
    td854 , June 7, 2009 8:46 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...?
  • 13 Hide
    Cuddles , June 7, 2009 10:59 PM
    Called BS too. Intel and Graphics go together like Spandex and Fat Women.
Other Comments
  • 2 Hide
    dman3k , June 7, 2009 8:18 PM
    Intel's Larrabee will also be a graphic library rivaling Microsoft's DirectX???

    Yes! The monopolies at war! The small guys win!
  • 0 Hide
    Ciuy , June 7, 2009 8:21 PM
    bah useless ....
  • 8 Hide
    mcbowler , June 7, 2009 8:22 PM
    What happened to "Intel Confirms 'Larrabee' First Half 2010; No Delay"?
  • 7 Hide
    Master Exon , June 7, 2009 8:24 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.
  • 19 Hide
    td854 , June 7, 2009 8:46 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...?
  • 6 Hide
    haze4peace , June 7, 2009 9:19 PM
    And the excitement is fading...
  • 20 Hide
    stuart72 , June 7, 2009 9:31 PM
    td854Wouldn't 971mm squared be roughly 31x31mm...?

    My thoughts exactly - the readership on toms is slipping a bit recently too..
  • 4 Hide
    Regected , June 7, 2009 9:31 PM
    New hardware + new software = epic fail
  • 4 Hide
    mlcloud , June 7, 2009 9:52 PM
    Hehe. Daeros's strong point isn't math apparently.
  • 7 Hide
    cruiseoveride , June 7, 2009 10:01 PM
    Replace DirectX? In Intel's dreams
  • 9 Hide
    gabeherb345 , June 7, 2009 10:06 PM
    intel intel just stop.... ok stop it now
  • -7 Hide
    apmyhr , June 7, 2009 10:07 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?
  • 2 Hide
    apmyhr , June 7, 2009 10:16 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.
  • -1 Hide
    Anonymous , June 7, 2009 10:20 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...
  • 13 Hide
    Cuddles , June 7, 2009 10:59 PM
    Called BS too. Intel and Graphics go together like Spandex and Fat Women.
  • 13 Hide
    Dustpuppy , June 7, 2009 11:01 PM
    I'll pre-order it if they change the name to larrabee forever
  • 3 Hide
    Ciuy , June 7, 2009 11:14 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.

  • 2 Hide
    Regulas , June 7, 2009 11:54 PM
    I say death to direct X, long live Open GL.
  • 0 Hide
    JAYDEEJOHN , June 8, 2009 12:00 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
Display more comments