Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th Mar 2009 21:32 UTC
Intel On Friday, Intel engineers are detailing the inner workings of the company's first graphics chip in over a decade at the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco - sending a signal to the game industry that the world's largest chipmaker intends to be a player. During a conference call that served as a preview to the GDC sessions, Tom Forsyth, a software and hardware architect at Intel working on the Larrabee graphics chip project, discussed the design of Larrabee, a chip aimed squarely at Nvidia and at AMD's ATI unit.
Order by: Score:
good luck
by poundsmack on Fri 27th Mar 2009 22:58 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

i wish intel luck here, but i can't help but think its going to be a failure. I hope i am wrong though.

Reply Score: 3

RE: good luck
by fithisux on Sat 28th Mar 2009 08:33 UTC in reply to "good luck"
fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

It is not a failure because if everything is open, it leverages Linux/Solaris/BSD into gaming platforms.

Reply Score: 3

About time.
by cyclops on Sat 28th Mar 2009 03:26 UTC
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

Its tiresome that the duopoly that Graphics chips has become has remained for so long. I wonder what happened to all that price fixing problems. I think is was a slap on the wrist. It looks like everyone is getting into everyones elses pool Nvidia/AMD/Intel X86 + cutting edge graphics.

Its interesting especially now that Intel is more in-bed with Linux, whether they will try to avoid the Microsoft slowing technology, by working around their limitations on a platform that has none.

Reply Score: 3

RE: About time.
by Wrawrat on Sat 28th Mar 2009 06:00 UTC in reply to "About time."
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

I'd like to know more on that "slowing Microsoft technology" and how Intel will overcome it on a platform "with no limitations". Last I heard, Intel was developing GPUs with mediocre performance and I don't expect a change soon.

Yes, I am quite skeptical of Larrabee. Developing a GPU around the x86 ISA is just strange to me. I understand that x86 compilers are more mature than the ones used for proprietary architectures, but massive parallelisation is quite a new field. Thus, I suppose they are pretty much at the same point. Furthermore, NVidia and ATI will have enough time to develop alternatives, especially since Larrabee won't ship until next year. Sure, Larrabee will get 32 cores, but the current NVidia offerings already have 240. Oh, they lack functionnalities, but that's exactly why it's easier to put more of them on a silicon wafer.

I'm happy to see more competition, but I just don't expect a savior, even for Linux graphics, as high-end 3D graphics is a cut-throat business.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: About time.
by helf on Sat 28th Mar 2009 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE: About time."
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

What I don't get is why people seem to think "massive parallelism" is a new field. It's been around since super computers first started appearing... The Crays, Thinking Machines, etc were MASSIVELY parallel. It is how they had such insane performance for the 80s and early 90s.

Even current super computers are that way. It ain't a new field.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: About time.
by cyclops on Mon 30th Mar 2009 05:12 UTC in reply to "RE: About time."
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

I'd like to know more on that "slowing Microsoft technology" and how Intel will overcome it on a platform "with no limitations". Last I heard, Intel was developing GPUs with mediocre performance and I don't expect a change soon.

Yes, I am quite skeptical of Larrabee. Developing a GPU around the x86 ISA is just strange to me. I understand that x86 compilers are more mature than the ones used for proprietary architectures, but massive parallelisation is quite a new field. Thus, I suppose they are pretty much at the same point. Furthermore, NVidia and ATI will have enough time to develop alternatives, especially since Larrabee won't ship until next year. Sure, Larrabee will get 32 cores, but the current NVidia offerings already have 240. Oh, they lack functionnalities, but that's exactly why it's easier to put more of them on a silicon wafer.

I'm happy to see more competition, but I just don't expect a savior, even for Linux graphics, as high-end 3D graphics is a cut-throat business.


IE4-->Netscape, Word-->Wordperfect, XP-->Vista, Monopoly-->Governments Worldwide etc etc. I'll keep my words short fill in the sentences yourself.

This is not about 3D graphics this is about selling an end to end Hardware computing platform and AMD;Intel;Via;Nvidia are up for it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: About time.
by oxygene on Sat 28th Mar 2009 10:33 UTC in reply to "About time."
oxygene Member since:
2005-07-07

Its interesting especially now that Intel is more in-bed with Linux, whether they will try to avoid the Microsoft slowing technology, by working around their limitations on a platform that has none.

Some people think that "Intel is pro-OSS" because of that. What they forget is that Intel is _HUGE_. While there are departments that are involved with Linux, many are not, and are outright hostile to open source.
No idea where the larabee team is on the scale, but I wouldn't be too hopeful just yet.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: About time.
by arpan on Sat 28th Mar 2009 11:23 UTC in reply to "RE: About time."
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

I would expect them to be pro-OSS, if for no other reason than that they are new and need all the help & support they can get.

Reply Score: 1

RE: About time.
by tyrione on Sat 28th Mar 2009 22:04 UTC in reply to "About time."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

And Intel's virtual Monopoly is acceptable?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: About time.
by fithisux on Sun 29th Mar 2009 10:37 UTC in reply to "RE: About time."
fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

SIS/XGI, Matrox ,3DLabs and Via had all the time in the world to provide OpenSource drivers. They didn't. They are to blame.

Reply Score: 3

RE: About time.
by evangs on Sun 29th Mar 2009 14:36 UTC in reply to "About time."
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

Intel ships far more graphics chips than ATI or nVidia. IIRC, around 50% of graphics cards shipped world wide are Intel.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: About time.
by griffinme on Sun 29th Mar 2009 15:42 UTC in reply to "RE: About time."
griffinme Member since:
2005-11-09

Intel ships far more graphics chips than ATI or nVidia. IIRC, around 50% of graphics cards shipped world wide are Intel.
Not sure I would really count them as graphics cards. Its like the old Yugo's. They would sorta get you from one place to another. But every moment you were in one you were wishing you had a different car.

Reply Score: 2

RE: About time.
by moondevil on Sun 29th Mar 2009 15:19 UTC in reply to "About time."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Like most commercial companies they only embrace Linux as long as it helps their business.

For example the lastest tools for graphics optimization target only DirectX.

http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-gpa/

And their multithread tools target only Windows.

http://software.intel.com/en-us/intel-parallel-studio-home/

It is nice to have Intel helping OSS projects, but don't expect too much.

Reply Score: 1

Why Larrabee is so important...
by neuromancer85 on Sat 28th Mar 2009 21:47 UTC
neuromancer85
Member since:
2009-03-28

...at least for the game industry? I think that this interview on ArsTechnica explains it all ;-)
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/09/gpu-sweeney-interview.ar...

Reply Score: 2

OSS drivers
by smitty on Sun 29th Mar 2009 19:57 UTC
smitty
Member since:
2005-10-13

Last I heard, the Larrabee team hadn't figured out if they would even provide OSS drivers. There was concern that IP and other considerations might cause them to just release binary blobs like nvidia does.

Reply Score: 1

maddocks
Member since:
2006-01-28

Its true thanks to the awesome open source drivers intel has for its graphics card (even tho they used shared mem.) It performs great using beryl/compiz/fusion for a cool 3d desktop experience with little to no cofiguation besides the OUT OF THE BOX support.I remember a couple of years back when vista came out it required crazy specs 2ghz + cpu sumthing like 4gb of ram with a svga with 512mb of dedicated video ram to run aero. I had a 900mhz laptop with an intel 915gm leaching system ram that ran beryl flawlessly and i never once could see anything aero could do that compiz couldnt, but ive seen plenty of things compiz can do for effects that aero simply caint. Im not sure if this is A good example of what great drivers can do or how geat the 915 is or if simply linux can be given all the credit.

Reply Score: 1