Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Back To Larabee: Starting The Many Core Revolution

Xeon Phi: Intel's Larrabee-Derived Card In TACC's Supercomputer
By

Larrabee is the code name for a now-infamous project whereby Intel planned to build a graphics card based on a many-core processor and go toe-to-toe with AMD and Nvidia. Why not use x86 for everything, the company asked, and make some GPU-specific changes to the hardware, along with software-based optimizations? The fact that Intel has a huge investment in the x86 ISA explains its interest in leveraging existing technology to solve the future's performance issues. 

The idea of Larrabee was intriguing. We even published our own analysis back in 2009 (Larrabee: Intel's New GPU). Unfortunately, later that same year, Intel announced that Larrabee would not be a retail part. Then, in 2010, we received word that not only was the project shelved, but that Intel was taking a derivative of Larrabee into the HPC space.

Fast forward to now. Not only is there a shipping product based on the last eight years of work, but it's also part of a 10 petaFLOPS-class supercomputer called Stampede, which we mentioned on the prior page. Both Intel and TACC are quick to point out that the hardware composing Stampede is pre-production, although it's purportedly fairly similar to the Xeon Phi 5110P and 3100 series coprocessors.

The competition is also very active in this space. Nvidia has a longer history of GPU-based computing than Intel, and it recently disclosed that the Titan supercomputer, developed by Cray for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, employs Kepler-based Tesla K20 cards to help push performance as high as 20 petaFLOPS. 

AMD is similarly working to drum up excitement about its FirePro cards, particularly in light of the exceptional compute performance enabled by the Graphics Core Next architecture. In the meantime, we also see the company enjoying success with its Opteron processors. The same Titan supercomputer populated with Nvidia GPUs also leverages 18 688 Opteron 6274 CPUs, each with eight Bulldozer modules.

Bottom line: although Intel is a long-time proponent of using multiple cores in parallel, its approach up until now has largely involved general-purpose x86 CPUs operating in concert. Meanwhile, companies like AMD and Nvidia do their part to compete with graphics-oriented architectures that just so happen to handle floating-point math deftly. By jumping on-board now, Intel is late to the game. But it's banking on the ubiquity of x86 to make work easier on software developers, many of whom are still trying to get their heads around programming for CUDA or OpenCL.

Display all 70 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 20 Hide
    mocchan , November 13, 2012 12:52 AM
    Articles like these is what makes me more and more interested in servers and super computers...Time to read up and learn more!
  • 17 Hide
    wannabepro , November 13, 2012 12:52 AM
    Highly interesting.
    Great article.

    I do hope they get these into the hands of students like myself though.
Other Comments
  • 20 Hide
    mocchan , November 13, 2012 12:52 AM
    Articles like these is what makes me more and more interested in servers and super computers...Time to read up and learn more!
  • 17 Hide
    wannabepro , November 13, 2012 12:52 AM
    Highly interesting.
    Great article.

    I do hope they get these into the hands of students like myself though.
  • 9 Hide
    ddpruitt , November 13, 2012 12:58 AM
    Intriguing idea....

    These X86 cores have the uumph to run something a little more complex than what a GPGPU can. But is it worth it and what kind of effort does it require. I'd have to disagree with Intel's assertion that you can get used to it by programming for an "i3". Anyone with a relatively modern graphics card can learn to program OpenCL or CUDA on there own system. But learning how to program 60 cores efficiently (or more) from an 8 core (optimistically) doesn't seem reasonable. And how much is one of these cards going to run? You might get more by stringing a few GPUs together for the same cost.

    I'm wonder if this is going to turn into the same time of niche product that Intel's old math-coprocessors did.
  • 8 Hide
    CaedenV , November 13, 2012 1:05 AM
    man, I love these articles! Just the sheer amounts of stuffs that go into them... measuring ram in hundreds of TBs... HDD space in PBs... it is hard to wrap one's brain around!

    I wonder what AMD is going to do... on the CPU side they have the cheaper (much cheaper) compute power for servers, but it is not slowing Intel sales down any. Then on the compute side Intel is making a big name for themselves with their new (but pricy) cards, and nVidia already has a handle on the 'budget' compute cards, while AMD does not have a product out yet to compete with PHI or Tesla.
    On the processor side AMD really needs to look out for nVidia and their ARM chip prowess, which if focused on could very well eat into AMD's server chip market for the 'affordable' end of this professional market... It just seems like all the cards are stacked against AMD... rough times.

    And then there is IBM. The company that has so much data center IP that they could stay comfortably afloat without having to make a single product. But the fact is that they have their own compelling products for this market, and when they get a client that needs intel or nvidia parts, they do not hesitate to build it for them. In some ways it amazes me that they are still around because you never hear about them... but they really are still the 'big boy' of the server world.
  • -3 Hide
    A Bad Day , November 13, 2012 1:10 AM
    esrevermeh


    *Looks at the current selection of desktops, laptops and tablets, including custom built PCs*

    *Looks at the major data server or massively complex physics tasks that need to be accomplished*

    *Runs such tasks on baby computers, including ones with an i7 clocked to 6 GHz and quad SLI/CF, then watches them crash or lock up*


    ENTIRE SELECTION IS BABIES!

    tacoslavei wonder if they can mod this to run games...


    A four-core game that mainly relies on one or two cores, running on a thousand-core server. What are you thinking?
  • -1 Hide
    ThatsMyNameDude , November 13, 2012 1:49 AM
    Holy shit. Someone tell me if this will work. Maybe, if we pair this thing up with enough xeons and enough quadros and teslas, we can connect it with a gaming system and we could use the xeons to render low load games like cod mw3 and tf2 and feed it to the gaming system.
  • 1 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , November 13, 2012 1:49 AM
    Main advantage of LRB over Tesla and AMD firepro S10000 :

    A simple recompile is all thats needed to use PHI. Tesla/AMD needs a complete code re write. Which is very very expensive .
    I see LRB being highly successful.
  • 5 Hide
    PudgyChicken , November 13, 2012 1:59 AM
    It'd be pretty neat to use a supercomputer like this to play a game like Metro 2033 at 4K, fully ray-traced.

    I'm having nerdgasms just thinking about it.
  • 5 Hide
    palladin9479 , November 13, 2012 2:59 AM
    Each of these cards is their own computer and runs their own OS. The host system will need to manage the environment of the card and give it some form of permanent storage, most likely through abstraction.

    I've worked with specialized cards like these, through they were for running non-native x86 code on a SPARC platform. They act like a totally separate system with their own IP / virtual frame buffer / IO space, the whole works. You treat them just like you would a dedicated server. Which makes their choice of linux pretty clear, you can easily cluster multiple non-uniform linux servers for distributed processing.

    These are very interesting, won't be quite as powerful as a dedicated vector processor but handles general computing tasks well enough and can run code natively without needing to rewrite the program.
  • 2 Hide
    PreferLinux , November 13, 2012 3:32 AM
    CaedenVman, I love these articles! Just the sheer amounts of stuffs that go into them... measuring ram in hundreds of TBs... HDD space in PBs... it is hard to wrap one's brain around!I wonder what AMD is going to do... on the CPU side they have the cheaper (much cheaper) compute power for servers, but it is not slowing Intel sales down any. Then on the compute side Intel is making a big name for themselves with their new (but pricy) cards, and nVidia already has a handle on the 'budget' compute cards, while AMD does not have a product out yet to compete with PHI or Tesla.On the processor side AMD really needs to look out for nVidia and their ARM chip prowess, which if focused on could very well eat into AMD's server chip market for the 'affordable' end of this professional market... It just seems like all the cards are stacked against AMD... rough times.And then there is IBM. The company that has so much data center IP that they could stay comfortably afloat without having to make a single product. But the fact is that they have their own compelling products for this market, and when they get a client that needs intel or nvidia parts, they do not hesitate to build it for them. In some ways it amazes me that they are still around because you never hear about them... but they really are still the 'big boy' of the server world.

    1. Not really, their price/performance ratio is fairly similar. They're a lot cheaper, but also perform a lot worse. Add in the higher power consumption (and it surely matters in anything at this level), and if anything Intel is better.

    2. AMD released the FirePro S10000 less than 24 hours ago. It is competing directly against this and Tesla.

    -----------------------------------

    On a completely separate note, I'm wondering what the price of these is. nVidia's latest K20 costs about $3200 and is rated at 1.17 TFLOPS peak and 225 W. This is rated at 1.01 TFLOPS peak, with the same power rating. It wouldn't be hard for Intel to beat nVidia on price...
  • 0 Hide
    Alphi , November 13, 2012 4:04 AM
    aye. they can accurately model the weather... but during downtime they cannot play 3D games at ridiculously high frame rates. what geek would recommend buying such a "work tool"?
  • 4 Hide
    blazorthon , November 13, 2012 4:10 AM
    PreferLinux1. Not really, their price/performance ratio is fairly similar. They're a lot cheaper, but also perform a lot worse. Add in the higher power consumption (and it surely matters in anything at this level), and if anything Intel is better.2. AMD released the FirePro S10000 less than 24 hours ago. It is competing directly against this and Tesla.-----------------------------------On a completely separate note, I'm wondering what the price of these is. nVidia's latest K20 costs about $3200 and is rated at 1.17 TFLOPS peak and 225 W. This is rated at 1.01 TFLOPS peak, with the same power rating. It wouldn't be hard for Intel to beat nVidia on price...


    Some of AMD's Opterons have far greater performance for the money than any Xeons do, so I'd have to disagree (at least partially) with you. The same is probably not true for all of AMD's Opterons, but it is true for at least some of them.

    For example, here:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113038
    $600 for a CPU that in fully threaded work can compete with Intel's six-core and eight-core Xeon models quite well, if not beat them, in work that scales across as many cores as you throw at it and it does so while using not too much power at all.

    Other good examples:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=19-113-036

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113030

    Pretty much all of these models:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100008494+600061216&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&IsNodeId=1&Subcategory=727&description=&hisInDesc=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&AdvancedSearch=1&srchInDesc=

    They all have better price/performance than the multi-socket Xeons. Lower power efficiency, definitely so in most cases, but not in all.
  • 0 Hide
    IndignantSkeptic , November 13, 2012 4:25 AM
    Please forgive my ignorance but why do we need x86 processors still when a compiler now is supposed to automatically generate all the necessary machine codes from the same high level source code?

    Also will we ever be able to upgrade supercomputers simply by replacing small parts of it at a time with newer better components and basically having different parts of the supercomputer running at different speeds?

    Also why the hell is CUDA and OpenCL advocated repeatedly in this article when OpenMP was supposed to replace them, as far as I understand, and is actually mentioned in one of the pictures?!
  • -2 Hide
    memadmax , November 13, 2012 6:02 AM
    Ok, the hardware looks decent.
    But, there's one problem: Intel is relying on programmers being able to optimize to a high degree for this setup...

    And that is the problem, programmers these days are lazy...
    It used to be you would spend a whole day optimizing loops using counters and timers to squeeze every last drop out of that loop...

    Now, programmers are like kids with legos, they just merge crap together that was written by someone else and as long as it runs decent, they call it good...
  • 2 Hide
    PreferLinux , November 13, 2012 6:21 AM
    blazorthonSome of AMD's Opterons have far greater performance for the money than any Xeons do, so I'd have to disagree (at least partially) with you. The same is probably not true for all of AMD's Opterons, but it is true for at least some of them.For example, here:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819113038$600 for a CPU that in fully threaded work can compete with Intel's six-core and eight-core Xeon models quite well, if not beat them, in work that scales across as many cores as you throw at it and it does so while using not too much power at all.Other good examples:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 19-113-036http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819113030Pretty much all of these models:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] rchInDesc=They all have better price/performance than the multi-socket Xeons. Lower power efficiency, definitely so in most cases, but not in all.

    Some... Good point.

    IndignantSkepticPlease forgive my ignorance but why do we need x86 processors still when a compiler now is supposed to automatically generate all the necessary machine codes from the same high level source code?Also will we ever be able to upgrade supercomputers simply by replacing small parts of it at a time with newer better components and basically having different parts of the supercomputer running at different speeds?Also why the hell is CUDA and OpenCL advocated repeatedly in this article when OpenMP was supposed to replace them, as far as I understand, and is actually mentioned in one of the pictures?!

    Because if you've got x86 code and you want to use OpenCL or CUDA you have to completely re-write it. Compilers can't just translate between them. Besides, a lot of HPC stuff would be highly-optimised, and that often means low-level stuff (Assembly, even).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenMP OpenMP is for multi-threading, generally using the CPU. It also works with clusters over a network, hence it is great for this (Xeon Phi). But it doesn't work with GPUs.

    memadmaxOk, the hardware looks decent.But, there's one problem: Intel is relying on programmers being able to optimize to a high degree for this setup...And that is the problem, programmers these days are lazy...It used to be you would spend a whole day optimizing loops using counters and timers to squeeze every last drop out of that loop...Now, programmers are like kids with legos, they just merge crap together that was written by someone else and as long as it runs decent, they call it good...

    Um, I get the distinct impression it needs very little optimisation. I think programmers will find it far easier to optimise for this than for GPGPU which requires a complete re-write.

    PreferLinux-On a completely separate note, I'm wondering what the price of these is. nVidia's latest K20 costs about $3200 and is rated at 1.17 TFLOPS peak and 225 W. This is rated at 1.01 TFLOPS peak, with the same power rating. It wouldn't be hard for Intel to beat nVidia on price...

    As a follow-up to this, (one of) the SemiAccurate articles gave the price, and it was mid-$2000s – much better than nVidia's K20, for a similar performance, and most likely a much better architecture to program for (or make use of).
  • 0 Hide
    cats_Paw , November 13, 2012 6:32 AM
    Is there any way to convert that into gaming power? I mean, 60 cpus for gaming is definitly overkill, but would it be posibl to use that and chanel all that raw power into really amazing games?

    I ask cus, in reality, gaming industry does seem limited to me ...
  • 0 Hide
    IndignantSkeptic , November 13, 2012 7:13 AM
    @PreferLinux, I'm shocked programmers still program in low level. Also how can OpenMP not work on GPUs when a section of OpenMP is OpenACC?!!
  • 0 Hide
    blazorthon , November 13, 2012 8:24 AM
    Cats_PawIs there any way to convert that into gaming power? I mean, 60 cpus for gaming is definitly overkill, but would it be posibl to use that and chanel all that raw power into really amazing games?I ask cus, in reality, gaming industry does seem limited to me ...


    I doubt that you could do a whole lot with that much performance even if we made games that could somehow utilize that many cores. You might be able to do something like one hell of a physics processing game with very high FPS that way, but otherwise, IDK how much you could actually do with it.
Display more comments