1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Larrabee Capable of 2 TFLOPs

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jul 6, 2008.

  1. Morgoth

    Morgoth

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    3,795 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    250
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Those are not Netburst !
     
  2. panchoman

    panchoman Sold my stars!

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,595 (3.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    aren't p4's nutburst?
     
  3. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,958 (11.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,757
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Where did you see 'P4' in the news post? That's P54C....of which Pentium Pro / MMX came up.
     
  4. panchoman

    panchoman Sold my stars!

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,595 (3.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    oh, my bad.. wait so they're using like freaking p1's? wtf?
     
  5. DrPepper

    DrPepper The Doctor is in the house

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7,483 (2.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    813
    Location:
    Scotland (It rains alot)
    My system only takes up about 320 watts as it stands quad core etc :eek: that will put it to 600 watt
     
  6. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    13,630 (5.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,847
    ok, the Pentium Pro, P2, P3, PM, C2, all relied on architecture for performance (P6)

    486, Pentium, P4 and possibly Nehalem Rely heavily on Clock speed for performance.
     
  7. Megasty New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,263 (0.51/day)
    Thanks Received:
    82
    Location:
    The Kingdom of Au
    Heh, its a CPU on a silicon board, period. However, 2 TFLOPs is one damn powerful CPU. The 13+ year tech is a nice touch too. Just like the GMA IGP series was based off the i740 BS, this thing is based off some dinosaur bones that I'll end up remembering if I think about it long enough - & I won't. If games will accept the x86, then this thing will fly. If not, then it will flop, badly. No middle ground at all.
     
  8. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,958 (11.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,757
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Games have no role to play in compatibility. The driver and DirectX / OpenGL take care of it.
     
  9. Megasty New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,263 (0.51/day)
    Thanks Received:
    82
    Location:
    The Kingdom of Au
    Great, then this have a real possibility of working but its still a huge experiment - but if it performs anywhere near the 4870x2 then it will be a ridiculous sucess. However, I'm still not counting any chickens yet :D
     
  10. B1gg3stN00b

    B1gg3stN00b New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,944 (0.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    109
    I learned that the hard way!

    So many chipset driver problems!
     
  11. TheGuruStud

    TheGuruStud

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,654 (0.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    175
    Location:
    Police/Nanny State of America
    it's a pentium 3 b/c it has short pipelines? Hardly...
     
  12. WarEagleAU

    WarEagleAU Bird of Prey

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,807 (3.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    547
    Location:
    Gurley, AL
    I guess this is what they mean by the Ray Tracing of their cards, using CPUs. For some reason, I thought larrabee was going to be made up of x86 cpu cores and also some type of gpu core. From the looks of it, its all a computer chips on an expansion card.
     
    pentastar111 says thanks.
  13. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,958 (11.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,757
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    No, it's 32 computer chips on a single (roughly 5cm x 5cm silicon die.).

    Just like you have those 128 / 320 SP's, here, the SP is a x86 processor. It does better out-of-the-order execution,.... crunches numbers better.

    Even if Larrabee fails as a GPU, it will most certainly be ported as a CPU, it will be the most powerful CPU ever made.

    There's more:

    If this thing is sold as a full card by Intel for say $600 (to remain competitive),
    as a CPU (when ported to a central processing), even if it costs the same (sans any board, just the chip), you have the most powerful CPU for $600.....2000 TFLOPs on a desktop processor by 2009/10 howzzat?
     
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  14. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,274 (2.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    968
    Larrabee has 16 or 32 fully blown x86 cores. All clocked at 2Ghz. Never mind the graphics, just imagine sticking one of those babies in your PC for CUDA, PhysX, math libraries, or what have you. That card is going to outclass a PS3 at Folding@Home and match any $5000 "maths" add-in card that are used for specialist applications, at a price more like $200.

    Unbelieveable power/price.

    What is also in the pipeline is a mainboard with an empty socket. And you just plug in a Larrabee for extra zmog horsepower, just like those old x87 chips of yesteryear. Communication with main CPU is via Quickpath.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrabee_(GPU)

    In fact, this is interesting. Based on the spec of each of those in-oder processors, with extra SIMD instructions, they look awfully like Intel 'Atoms'.

    Perhaps this is how Intel will scale Westmere/Sandy Bridge. Rather than producing multi-versions of the CPU with core and various atom combinations, it will have just the cores. You then have an add-in socket where you can choose to add 8, 16 or 32 (or whatever) atoms as a Larrabee add-in chip.

    Nice.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2008
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  15. a111087

    a111087

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,775 (0.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    203
    Location:
    US
    lol, they better not release it, but work their way for something more efficient...
     
  16. Swansen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    Messages:
    182 (0.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9
    FRIGGIN YES, i don't really get it ether, cards just eat up more and more power, but not at reasonable gains.
     
  17. Morgoth

    Morgoth

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    3,795 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    250
    Location:
    Netherlands
    mybe it overclocks like a cpu mybe you can get 4ghz on water :D
     
  18. WarEagleAU

    WarEagleAU Bird of Prey

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,807 (3.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    547
    Location:
    Gurley, AL
    Wow thanks BTA and Lemonade, I didnt know that. That is going to be a beast of a card/cpu. However, I wonder if in 2009/2010, if ATI/AMD and Nvidia wont have something better.
     
  19. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    13,630 (5.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,847
    Knowing Intel it will most likely be a EE class meaning over 1000 USD, basically consider it a Professional workstation card, not a Consumer Card.
     
  20. Solaris17

    Solaris17 Creator Solaris Utility DVD

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    17,413 (5.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,714
    Location:
    Florida
    its a distinct possibility with the shrink etc...but keep in mind this is old arch even if it hits 2ghz like intel is saying remember that that might only be because of the die shrink anything past that and we might be hitting an arch limit. but then again who knows? maybe it was never an archlimit...maybe it was a design limit the old procs were made out of like ceramic lol and incorporated 5 elements now they use half the chart and purified silicon.
     
  21. Megasty New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,263 (0.51/day)
    Thanks Received:
    82
    Location:
    The Kingdom of Au
    That would be the last thing we need. Even if this thing performs around a 4870x2, that's no reason for Intel to go crazy & charge a grand for it. Unfortunately for them, they have competition at that lvl of gfx - unlike those sick EE class processors which are in a league of their own.
     
  22. swaaye

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    234 (0.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    16
    LOL @ the power use, yeah. I've read that this design is going to be most useful for GPGPU stuff like Physics, Folding, Video encoding, etc. It doesn't sound like it'll be best for graphics.

    Pentium P54C is the Pentium 75-200 MHz. Pentium MMX (133-233 MHz) was P55C. Obviously this Larrabee chip isn't made out of 1996 Pentium CPUs. It would never clock above ~300 MHz if that were the case. They just used them as a architectural hint. Actually, the Atom CPU is based on a core from Larrabee, I think. Atom is similar to P54C too.

    Atom's lack of speed vs. power use can be an indication of the potential of each Larrabee core. A Core 2 core is dramatically more powerful for most applications. Larrabee will only be fast for apps that can spread across its many cores.
     
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  23. Weer New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,417 (0.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    94
    Location:
    New York / Israel
    I believe you are lying under a miscomprehension.

    Larrabee will likely still be almost powerless in games, compared to even last generation GPU's. It may have 30 cores, but guess how many ALU's each core has - that's right 1, just like any other CPU. Considering the 2 TFLOP computational power assesment, it is likely a very powerful ALU, but it would still only amount to the same amount on a GPU, which puts the Larrabee at a huge disadvantage against identically-architectured GPU's, such as the G92. It would be a lot more powerful, naturally, but just as the 800 ALU's running under the "R700"' core, it will fail at performing gaming-specific operations. That being said, it could still be great for CUDA, physics or.. just general computing. Because that's what scalar-based "CPU ALU's" are good for - everything, but they perform at it much less proficiantly.

    That being said, this is fascinating to even draw up. I would want to see it in action.
     
  24. effmaster

    effmaster New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,328 (0.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    75
    Location:
    Rocket City, Alabama (Huntsville)
    Guys you gotta remember that this is Intels FIRST REAL PUSH into the dedicated graphics card market. The fact that their first GPU will be this powerful already says alot about it so relax. Intel will continue to improve on its GPUS. If its less powerful than what its competitors are when its released then it will more than likely have a lower price tag so yay for that.
    I dont think that intel is expecting a whole lot from their first dedicated graphics card.
    People need top stop complaining about how the intel graphics card will be using old architecture. If the old architecture works then whats to complain about? I dont have a beef as long as its not overpriced and gives a bad framerate for games. None of which we are sure on yet.
     
  25. AphexDreamer

    AphexDreamer

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    7,194 (2.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Location:
    C:\Program Files (x86)\Aphexdreamer\

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page