flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Intel Larrabee Microarchitecture to compete with GPU's

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Madis731



Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 2140
Location: Estonia
Madis731
Will this help => http://intellinuxgraphics.org/OpRegion.html

If you open the spec and read 6.5: Display Switch and realize it can be done driverless Smile You can have some neat features without even writing a driver.
Post 08 May 2009, 20:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
That's what I like about Intel.
Post 08 May 2009, 21:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Madis731



Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 2140
Location: Estonia
Madis731
Post 15 May 2009, 06:46
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Madis731



Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 2140
Location: Estonia
Madis731
More under-the-hood stuff from the graphics genius himself:
EDIT: Link dead, found a new one http://a676.g.akamaitech.net/f/676/773/60m/images.delivery.net/cm50content/intel/software/e-alert/RasterizationOnLarrabeeArticleReprint.pdf


Last edited by Madis731 on 17 Jul 2012, 12:41; edited 1 time in total
Post 14 Sep 2009, 14:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Hmm I'm starting to like it a lot!
Post 14 Sep 2009, 16:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
I know it's old, but didn't we already hear about this in the form of AMD Fusion? I don't think it's Nvidia that intel's trying to beat here. I've been waiting a while for AMD to deliver for the same reasons, standardized graphics, but i'm still waiting... There's still no proof that it won't still be a closed source thing...
Post 10 Oct 2009, 11:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Intel want to fry IBM & ARM now.
Post 10 Oct 2009, 15:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
You're kidding... I can't see how they could hope to. ARM even benefits from the lack of need of a branch predictor. Intel's practically dependent on it (at least the x86 is).
Post 10 Oct 2009, 21:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Madis731



Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 2140
Location: Estonia
Madis731
Actually Larrabee is a step back in the sense that it doesn't have many fancy features i.e. i7 has. Its basically multiple Pentium II-s stacked together.

Recent news:
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/12/2/intel-larrabee-finally-hits-1tflops---27x-faster-than-nvidia-gt200!.aspx
http://www.tgdaily.com/hardware-features/44904-intel-debuts-48-core-processor

Also a lengthy quote from the first article:
Quote:
But as of SC09, the top five performing products for SGEMM 4K x 4K are as follows [do note that multi-GPU products are excluded as they don't run SGEMM]:
1. Intel Larrabee [LRB, 45nm] - 1006 GFLOPS
2. EVGA GeForce GTX 285 FTW - 425 GFLOPS
3. nVidia Tesla C1060 [GT200, 65nm] - 370 GFLOPS
4. AMD FireStream 9270 [RV770, 55nm] - 300 GFLOPS
5. IBM PowerXCell 8i [Cell, 65nm] - 164 GFLOPS

If you're wondering where products such as Intel Harpertown-based Core 2 Quad or Nehalem-based Core i7 stand, the answer is quite simple - i7 XE 975 at 3.33 GHz will give you 101 GFLOPS, while Core 2 Extreme QX9770 at 3.2 GHz gives out 91 GFLOPS. Regardless of how hard we tired, we weren't able to find performance of AMD CPUs while using 4K by 4K matrix.
Post 03 Dec 2009, 14:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Does that mean Larabee is 10 times faster than i7? wow! how much power does it need?

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 03 Dec 2009, 15:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Madis731



Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 2140
Location: Estonia
Madis731
TGDaily wrote:

[---] all cores to operate at 25 watts (idle), or at 125 watts when running at maximum [---]

...and other articles say that it will remain below the TDP of i7 (currently around 130W)
Source = http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyID=28037

_________________
My updated idol Very Happy http://www.agner.org/optimize/
Post 03 Dec 2009, 19:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
I have to admit I'm totally blown away by these results.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 04 Dec 2009, 16:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Well remember, the reality is always much different from the marketing. Until we see some results we can test and rely on, it's not worth getting your hopes up only to have them crashing down on you.
Post 05 Dec 2009, 02:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Alphonso



Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 294
Alphonso
Post 05 Dec 2009, 12:13
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Heh, see what i mean?
Post 05 Dec 2009, 12:39
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Not canceled, just not available for us "mere mortals" - as I understood the article I read, they're still planning the GPU-version for us mortals, though.
Post 05 Dec 2009, 13:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Eh, usually whenever someone pushes a project back, they're trying to slowly let some PR die down, because they don't think (or don't want to) meet a particular goal. My guess is that they did something right for once and are afraid that if they sell it, they won't be able to beat it. I could be wrong, but why else would they hold this from us if it's as so far along as it supposedly is?
Post 05 Dec 2009, 14:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Madis731



Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 2140
Location: Estonia
Madis731
Yeah, I've read about it in Anand:
http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=659
and then some additional thoughts on the subject:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3686
Post 07 Dec 2009, 07:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1159
Azu
kohlrak wrote:
Eh, usually whenever someone pushes a project back, they're trying to slowly let some PR die down, because they don't think (or don't want to) meet a particular goal. My guess is that they did something right for once and are afraid that if they sell it, they won't be able to beat it. I could be wrong, but why else would they hold this from us if it's as so far along as it supposedly is?
Why not just release a stripped down version then? Or charge an insane amount? They've never been shy of doing the latter for their new products before..

_________________
Post 07 Dec 2009, 23:42
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Azu wrote:
kohlrak wrote:
Eh, usually whenever someone pushes a project back, they're trying to slowly let some PR die down, because they don't think (or don't want to) meet a particular goal. My guess is that they did something right for once and are afraid that if they sell it, they won't be able to beat it. I could be wrong, but why else would they hold this from us if it's as so far along as it supposedly is?
Why not just release a stripped down version then? Or charge an insane amount? They've never been shy of doing the latter for their new products before..


Because if they felt they could NEVER beat it, when the price eventually comes down, they're up the crick without a paddle. It's like politicians. If they actually solved the problems, they'd be out of a job. If this CPU design and theory actually does what it promises, it would send x86 CPUs down a path of great improvement with little room for more. If other CPU archs used the idea and it worked, it would put intel out of business since it's cheap and many archs could out perform x86 if they put as much development cost into the product as you're regular x86 gets.
Post 07 Dec 2009, 23:49
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.