Page 2 of 2
Re: Intel Larabee
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 4:15 pm
by _tommo_
reading later. It is indeed very interesting...
but i wanted to see some screenshots

Re: Intel Larabee
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:20 am
by jjp
http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=659
How can I put it? I told you so

Nevertheless, it will be interesting how their next shot will look like. Still no fixed function rasterization logic?
Re: Intel Larabee
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:29 pm
by Kojack
Hmm, I wonder if Tom Forsyth is going to reveal any of the details on why the first Larrabee is cancelled.
Re: Intel Larabee
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:51 pm
by jjp
Kojack wrote:Hmm, I wonder if Tom Forsyth is going to reveal any of the details on why the first Larrabee is cancelled.
I guess it is quite simple: 300W TDP and no competitive performance

Re: Intel Larabee
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:24 pm
by Klaim
Well I'm not surprised, it's common to fail on the firs implementation of something "new". Personally I'll look wait 2 or 3 years again before thining it's a dead project.
Anyway, it's more the concept than the product that is interesting : if nvidia or AMD can do the same better, then it's all good
I just hope it will not be like the AMD k10(?) architecture failure (if my memory is right).
Re: Intel Larabee
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:00 pm
by jjp
I am simply not surprised because the concept is at least in 3 respects seriously flawed:
- Trying to beat highly optimized fixed function rasterization logic with software running on general purpose processors.
- Not even having dedicated scheduling hardware.
- Keeping the overhead for the x86 instruction set, in a case where this is clearly not beneficial and proportionally also more expensive than it is for a normal CPU.
And I am slightly satisfied with their failure, because of their arrogance to generate all this hype without having a product.