Larrabee: Intel's New GPU

The Vector Unit And Mask Register

The last interesting point about this unit is the existence of a mask register, which is somewhat similar to the filter register in the VMX instruction set. This register, which contains 16 Boolean values, indicates whether or not the result values are to be written to the destination register. The mask enables the use of a technique called predication. In the case of an if-then-else test, rather than trying to predict the result of the test to continue execution of the program without loss of performance, both branches are executed in parallel and only the appropriate one is kept when this register is used. When the code to be executed is in relatively short parts, this is more efficient because it avoids the risk of wrong branch predictions.

This unit is clearly the most interesting aspect of Larrabee. However, one can have a few reservations about the choice of a new SIMD instruction set. Admittedly, the SSE instruction set, which is aging and was designed to have low hardware impact, wasn’t suitable. But we also know that the teams at Intel are working on a new SIMD instruction set called advanced vector instructions (AVX). The latter has support for instructions with three operands and for MAD instructions and increases the size of the vectors it processes to 256 bits compared to 128 bits for SSE (and 512 bits for Larrabee).

It’s perfectly conceivable that Larrabee, due to its specificities, needed “exotic” instructions that have no place in a traditional CPU, and that the size of the AVX vectors was too limited. Whereas, conversely, 512-bit vectors were too much of a constraint on a standard CPU. But in practice, Intel’s language is a little contradictory. On the one hand, it points out that Larrabee supports the x86 instruction set, making it compatible with an enormous quantity of software. But on the other hand, to really make the most out of Larrabee, a new, specific instruction set is needed--one that won’t be used in other Intel CPUs.

  • thepinkpanther
    very interesting, i know nvidia cant settle for being the second best. As always its good for the consumer.
    Reply
  • IzzyCraft
    Yes interesting, but intel already makes like 50% of every gpu i rather not see them take more market share and push nvidia and amd out although i doubt it unless they can make a real performer, which i have no doubt on paper they can but with drivers etc i doubt it.
    Reply
  • I wonder if their aim is to compete to appeal to the gamer market to run high end games?
    Reply
  • Alien_959
    Very interesting, finally some more information about Intel upcoming "GPU".
    But as I sad before here if the drivers aren't good, even the best hardware design is for nothing. I hope Intel invests more on to the software side of things and will be nice to have a third player.
    Reply
  • crisisavatar
    cool ill wait for windows 7 for my next build and hope to see some directx 11 and openGL3 support by then.
    Reply
  • Stardude82
    Maybe there is more than a little commonality with the Atom CPUs: in-order execution, hyper threading, low power/small foot print.

    Does the duo-core NV330 have the same sort of ring architecture?
    Reply
  • "Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT). This technology has just made a comeback in Intel architectures with the Core i7, and is built into the Larrabee processors."

    just thought i'd point out that with the current amd vs intel fight..if intel takes away the x86 licence amd will take its multithreading and ht tech back leaving intel without a cpu and a useless gpu
    Reply
  • liemfukliang
    Driver. If Intel made driver as bad as Intel Extreme than event if Intel can make faster and cheaper GPU it will be useless.
    Reply
  • IzzyCraft
    Hope for an Omega Drivers equivalent lol?
    Reply
  • phantom93
    Damn, hoped there would be some pictures :(. Looks interesting, I didn't read the full article but I hope it is cheaper so some of my friends with reg desktps can join in some Orginal Hardcore PC Gaming XD.
    Reply