Intel to Introduce GPGPU Functions Into Westmere
Intel figures that two heads are better than one, so why not use both?
Despite Intel's shelving of Larrabee (at least what we knew of the first version), the company still sees a future in offloading tasks to the GPU.
According to X-bit labs, Intel said last week that its upcoming Westmere processors will offload some of the video transcoding duties from the CPU over to the integrated GPU.
Both the Clarkdale desktop and Arrandale notebook will feature a dual-core 32nm CPU and a 45nm GPU on the same chip (but not the same die). Intel did say that systems shipping with Clarkdale and Arrandale chips won't initially support such GPGPU functions, but it will come at a later date through a driver update.
Of course, those with much beefier graphics chips from AMD or Nvidia will likely have little use for what Intel's IGP can do, but it's a good signal from Intel that the chip giant still believes in GPGPU utility.
Follow us on Twitter for more tech news and exclusive updates here.
- Tuesday Deals: Lost Blu-ray Seasons 1-5 SALE!
- What Nvidia Had to Say About Larrabee's Delay
- Physicists Build World's Smallest Snowman
- Archos 5 Tablet at Radio Shack for $250
- Dell Launches Super Slim $450 Vostro V13
- IBM Working on 10 Petaflop Supercomputer
- CrunchPad 'joojoo' is $499, For Sale on Friday
- Seagate Announces Pulsar SSDs for Enterprises
- AMD to Demonstrate on Blu-ray Stereoscopic 3D
- Apple Ordered to Pay $21.7 Million in Patent Suit
- Intel Core i3 530 Appears in Online Store Listing
- These Could Be the Boxes for Office 2010
- Microsoft Starting to Plan for Office 15
- Time Traveling Sam & Max to Return in 2010
- World of Warcraft 3.3 Patch Gets Launch Trailer
- Wednesday Deals: Humpday Seinfeld Special
- Diskeeper Can Help Prevent HDD Fragmentation
- Microsoft Releases Win 7 USB/DVD Download Tool
Intel = FAIL
2 heads ARE better than 1
D
What about when the other head is a complete retard?
They'll get it all on one die eventually, and it will be more cost effective than manufacturing separate dies, but they'll never compete in gaming class graphics. Having the whole platform, including graphics, on one die will make it hard for nVidia to compete in enterprise graphics markets. AMD could do something similar, though they haven't moved in that direction yet.
GPGPU on an Intel GMA IGP? Intel IGPs can barely handle the graphics processing that already gets thrown at them!
... it iz emulating the FUSION blef...
... that mean new MoBo?
Intel = FAIL
Hey AMD Fanboy, get over it. Intel and AMD are both great companies.
About freaking time!
2 heads ARE better than 1 D
So that explains why guys are better than girls...I knew there had to be a reason.
Can this extra graphics processor be utilized even with a separate graphics card? Say I have a 5850 and one of these chips, will the CPU dump off some work onto the integrated graphics while I use my primary GPU for other things, or does having a separate GPU leave the integrated GPU sitting dead in the box taking up space?
How does this add to the heat of the CPU?
pfff
These IGP's can BARELY handle blu-ray decoding....and now they are going to be helpful with GPGPU?!.....right......
Intel CPU = Awesome
Intel GPU= Sucks
AMD CPU = Good
AMD (ATI) GPU = Awesome
I think I'll trust AMD's CPU/GPU integration.
Hey AMD Fanboy, get over it. Intel and AMD are both great companies.
Intel is good at making CPUs and AMD is good at... Whatever. They need to put more cores on CPU chips not some ultra low level GPUs. I want my HTed 48 cores ASAP!
I remember reading about Westmere a long time ago... this is mainly just an announcement that Intel's working on driver support for GPGPU functions... which isn't exactly a surprise. This isn't really anything interesting yet, since Intel hasn't even given a vague indication when this driver update will release, so its probably just an effort to get any positive news out, no matter how small, after they admitted failure and scrapped the "first version" of Larrabee.
Can this extra graphics processor be utilized even with a separate graphics card? Say I have a 5850 and one of these chips, will the CPU dump off some work onto the integrated graphics while I use my primary GPU for other things, or does having a separate GPU leave the integrated GPU sitting dead in the box taking up space?How does this add to the heat of the CPU?
if you have a 5850 then who cares if there's any other gpu's in the system? (unless it's a second 5850 for crossfire
Yes, the future is a unified CPU and GPU. I really don't see any future in the discrete graphic cards. When the CPU and GPU are centralized, resources would be dynamically allocated depending on the application. There would be less wasted silicon. And without the messy interfacing, the system as a whole would operate much faster.
I hope it supports opencl and not one of intel's own proprietary api's
with Intel's IGP, this might boost the performance by 5-10% when used, and thats being optimistic.
It's good enough for most games!
Just not the latest.
I don't think it's fail at all!
I'm really looking forward to this chip, and I bet a lot of other people do too!
I see they integrated the memory controller on the same die as the graphics chip, which means lower latencies for graphic applications. It allows them to have faster VRAM speeds without much additional cost; but it will also mean (since the memory controller is not located on the CPU) that the chip will perform slightly slower on programs.
On the other hand the CPU is fast enough for most programs, (save perhaps video encoding), but it is not for most games.
They did well in focusing the memory controller on the RAM.
Just that detail alone could increase graphics speed by a couple (or more than ten) percent on fps!
Combined with most likely what's going to be a slightly faster graphics GPU than a GMA950, we'll probably look at a decent graphics solution to play DX9 games with resolutions upto 1280x800 fluidly!
Perfect for netbooks and notebooks, servers, and small dekstops!
Those who don't like this, can still equip their pc with a Corei7, and a pair of Radeon 5870's if they like; I mean, it's not like this chip is going to totally replace the current lineup of regular CPU's.
Have anybody thought of the power-saving capabilities of those processors? Not only they are 32 Nm but they also come with a GPU. Yes, I know it is not a good GPU, but for using Windows alone, it does the job pretty well. Now your real GPU will be on idle most of time, saving power.
Not that I generally support Intel graphics but the Westmere IGP looks to be a major improvement over the GMA4500HD and can handle all you'd expect from an IGP as far as I can tell from the information already out in the wild.
The advantage of doing something like video transcoding over the GPU would effectively mean you'd get an extra "core" for free in the IGP. What's not to like?
I mean, I'm sure it won't be _amazing_ or anything but everything that leads to better utilization of all available resources in the computer must surely be a good thing.
I'm in the market for a notebook myself, though I'm holding out for Arrandale before making the purchase, and since I have a dedicated desktop for gaming I'm going to aim for a product that relies on the IGP alone. If I can get more functionality out of it that's all good in my book.
Can this extra graphics processor be utilized even with a separate graphics card? Say I have a 5850 and one of these chips, will the CPU dump off some work onto the integrated graphics while I use my primary GPU for other things, or does having a separate GPU leave the integrated GPU sitting dead in the box taking up space?How does this add to the heat of the CPU?
Yes, that's what switchable graphics means
MMX, SSE, on chip cache...and now GPGPU. Eventually an entire computer will be on a single die.
About freaking time!
sure AMD is great as long as they don't mess up like they did with the first phenom chip and finally go bankrupt which would be no surprise.
but in the end Intel will need to bail them out cause they need there 64-bit instruction set that AMD built on Intel's original CPU design.
Do your research before making uninformed remarks.
Clarkdale pulls even with AMD's 780G integrated solution in performance:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] stcount=38
why do you losers care anyways? these CPUs are going to end up having the same performance as any on board GPU. and if you use it for the useless SLI/crossfire all it going to do is create a bottleneck
Hey AMD Fanboy, get over it. Intel and AMD are both great companies.
You're assuming he's an AMD fanboi. Intel isn't the great innovator they want you to think they are, whereas AMD has made CPUs great and affordable. I am not a "fanboi" but yeah, Intel does = fail.
You're assuming he's an AMD fanboi. Intel isn't the great innovator they want you to think they are, whereas AMD has made CPUs great and affordable. I am not a "fanboi" but yeah, Intel does = fail.
really? i guess your not counting there core 2 CPU's, the atom CPU that popularized the netbook market, core I5,17 etc., etc. oh and what about all there mobile CPU's for notebooks? trying to find a notebook with an AMD CPU is like looking for a needle in a haystack because there mobile CPU's FAIL.