Intel Larrabee finally hits 1TFLOPS - 2.7x faster than nVidia GT200!

Printable View

12-02-2009, 05:56 AM
ajaidev

Intel Larrabee at 1TFLOPS "2.7x faster than nVidia GT200"...Oopps now its dead :(

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/Data...TFLOPS_675.jpg

"During the recently held SC09 conference in Portland, Oregon - Intel finally managed to reach its original performance goal for Larrabee. Back in 2006, when we first got the first details about Larrabee, the performance goal was "1TFLOPS@ 16 cores, 2.0 GHz clock, 150W TDP". During Justin Rattner's keynote, Intel demonstrated the performance of LRB as it stands today.

At SGEMM Performance test [4K by 4K Matrix Multiply, QCD], Intel achieved 417 GFLOPS using half the cores on the prototype card, and reached 825 GFLOPS by enabling all the cores. While looking at the numbers alone, one might think that these scores are below the level of ATI Radeon 4850 and nVidia GeForce GTX 280/GTX 285..."

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...ia-gt200!.aspx

So using the assumptions he said 5870 = 2*4870" so 5970 = 2*5870 and so 5970 = 4*300 or 1200 gflops hum. I know i know the clocks and the bandwidth, etc.... anyways someone should try to run this on the 5970 can you pass the 1Tflop mark if yes your thing is as powerful as a LRB :p:
12-02-2009, 06:10 AM
zalbard

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=239176
BSN is slow. :p:
12-02-2009, 06:13 AM
kl0012

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajaidev

So using the assumptions he said 5870 = 2*4870" so 5970 = 2*5870 and so 5970 = 4*300 or 1200 gflops hum. I know i know the clocks and the bandwidth, etc.... anyways someone should try to run this on the 5970 can you pass the 1Tflop mark if yes your thing is as powerful as a LRB :p:

You're mixing up theoretical FLOP/S and real FLOP/S. In fact theoretical SP perf for LRB should be arround 2 TFLOP/S (32 cores * 32 ips * 2 GHz). But in real life you're some times limited by other factors (such as mem bandwidth) especially in apps such matrix multiplication.
12-02-2009, 06:46 AM
Hornet331

It's not larrabee, its some sort of polaris derivative.

Edit, so it is larrabee. Seems theregister has screwed smething up in there article. :p:
12-02-2009, 07:05 AM
ajaidev

Quote:

Originally Posted by kl0012

You're mixing up theoretical FLOP/S and real FLOP/S. In fact theoretical SP perf for LRB should be arround 2 TFLOP/S (32 cores * 32 ips * 2 GHz). But in real life you're some times limited by other factors (such as mem bandwidth) especially in apps such matrix multiplication.

Are you kidding me, i was talking about real flops/s how can a 5970 "2*320 FAT shaders" not out around 1000gflops aka 1Tflops when a card based on RV770 "160 FAT shaders :p:" can out 300gflops.

In theory 5970 is good for 4.6 Tflops, but in reality it has to be good enough for at least 1 Tflop....
12-02-2009, 07:59 AM
BulldogPO

This will be mighty WCG cruncher :D
12-02-2009, 08:22 AM
Tim

Seems like Larrabee is more and more pitched to GPGPU. I think nVidia and Intel are on to this massive market, but would very much like to see what this means for us gamers.
12-02-2009, 08:26 AM
LedHed

haha you can't base the performance of a card solely off it's teraflops, that is just silly. I mean look at the ATI 2900 series for example, great numbers, crappy performance.
12-02-2009, 08:35 AM
deeperblue

We had all this discussion already in the old thread.

4870 gets around 900GFlop/s in Matrix Multiplication with optimized algorithm linked to in the old thread. 4890 breaks the Tflop/s.

So 5870 should be good for a much higher performance. Of the 5 shaders 4 can be used for the matrix multiplication. Theoretically this could give us 2Tflop/s for the 5870.

Let's wait until LRB finally get's released.

(and I also thought this presentation was about the 80core Polaris multicore test chip)

UPDATE: here the link
http://cerberus.fileburst.net/showthread.php?t=54842
12-02-2009, 08:43 AM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by deeperblue

We had all this discussion already in the old thread.

4870 gets around 900GFlop/s in Matrix Multiplication with optimized algorithm linked to in the old thread. 4890 breaks the Tflop/s.

So 5870 should be good for a much higher performance. Of the 5 shaders 4 can be used for the matrix multiplication. Theoretically this could give us 2Tflop/s for the 5870.

Let's wait until LRB finally get's released.

(and I also thought this presentation was about the 80core Polaris multicore test chip)

You can't compare a optimized algorithm with the algorithm in the benchmark... it would be like pitting superpi against hyperpi...
12-02-2009, 09:17 AM
deeperblue

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

You can't compare a optimized algorithm with the algorithm in the benchmark... it would be like pitting superpi against hyperpi...

But what do you think Intel is running there?
http://www.ats.ucla.edu/clusters/com..._benchmark.htm
It's of course running there optimized Intel MKL library optimized for especially that purpose and that hardware. Nvidia is also using there CUBLAS implementation. AMD only needs to update there ACML library with the algorithm in the link I posted...
12-02-2009, 09:42 AM
naokaji

Larrabee? meh... lets see how many years its going to take until software makes proper use of it after it launches at a unknown date in the future first before praising it.
12-02-2009, 09:54 AM
BulldogPO

It is X86 so softwares should work pretty soon.
12-02-2009, 09:57 AM
LedHed

I think it will be at least 3 years before we see Larrabee being used in anything worthwhile to actually buy the card.
12-02-2009, 10:15 AM
anubis

Quote:

Originally Posted by LedHed

I think it will be at least 3 years before we see Larrabee being used in anything worthwhile to actually buy the card.

I`ll BOINC it, when its available and can do WCG :)
12-02-2009, 10:21 AM
Smartidiot89

Quote:

Originally Posted by LedHed

haha you can't base the performance of a card solely off it's teraflops, that is just silly. I mean look at the ATI 2900 series for example, great numbers, crappy performance.

haha bother to read the article and edit your post.

This is no theoretical performancebeast like HD2900 or any of AMDs GPU line-up, this is actual, real-world performance where it outperforms GTX285 by 170%.

Intel opens a can of whoop-ass on the GPGPU market?
12-02-2009, 10:26 AM
LedHed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smartidiot89

haha bother to read the article and edit your post.

This is no theoretical performancebeast like HD2900 or any of AMDs GPU line-up, this is actual, real-world performance where it outperforms GTX285 by 170%.

Intel opens a can of whoop-ass on the GPGPU market?

It's kind of hard to open an article when the site is down.

but please show me anywhere in this article that benches larrabee against a GTX 285 in real world apps. All of the numbers are theoretical based on a synthetic benchmark, not actual real world performance in gaming/apps.
12-02-2009, 10:26 AM
Helloworld_98

150w?

not bad considering that's less than a 5850 and it will be in a league of it's own in GPGPU.
12-02-2009, 12:13 PM
Olivon

Intel shows off CPU with 48 cores
12-02-2009, 12:49 PM
ajaidev

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olivon

Intel shows off CPU with 48 cores

This is news worthy, you should have posted it in the front page IMO.

ANyway's the 567 mm2 means small cores that means multi threaded performance not single threaded. Great for cloud and other multi thread app's, where the hell is SUN's rock cpu???
12-02-2009, 12:49 PM
Helloworld_98

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olivon

Intel shows off CPU with 48 cores

567mm2?

any chance it's a typo of 576mm2, which is the size of GT200.
12-02-2009, 12:53 PM
Face

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynjYu...layer_embedded
12-02-2009, 01:23 PM
Olivon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Face

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynjYu...layer_embedded

Thx for the video Face :up:

ajaidev : corrected ;)
12-02-2009, 02:45 PM
eric66

whats is impresive in this ati already reached teraflop i think 1.8 or something
12-02-2009, 03:02 PM
god_43

so the the 5XXX and nvidia are still way ahead of intel? this just proves that they are not building vaporware. by the time Larrabee comes out.....it will be blown away. i guess intel has to start some where right?
12-02-2009, 03:38 PM
Olivon

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric66

whats is impresive in this ati already reached teraflop i think 1.8 or something

It's concerning SGEMM 4K x 4K performance

Quote:

1. Intel Larrabee [LRB OC, 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
6. i7 XE 975 - 101 GFLOPS
12-02-2009, 03:50 PM
eric66

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olivon

It's concerning SGEMM 4K x 4K performances

there is post there saying this 'Anyways I've read that SGEMM on AMD/ATI 5870 has reached 67 % of theoretical performance.

This would mean that the 5870 is doing 0.67*2.72 TFLOPs ~= 1.8 TFLOPs on SGEMM. Almost twice the peformance of LRB.'

don't know if its true or note though
12-02-2009, 04:13 PM
Russian

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olivon

Thx for the video Face :up:

ajaidev : corrected ;)

The video was linked in the article. ;)
12-02-2009, 04:48 PM
Aerou

Quote:

Originally Posted by BulldogPO

This will be mighty WCG cruncher :D

That depends, but I like the thinking :up:
12-02-2009, 05:46 PM
haylui

AMD is going to have new GPU next year....lolz...
12-02-2009, 08:49 PM
JumpingJack

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric66

there is post there saying this 'Anyways I've read that SGEMM on AMD/ATI 5870 has reached 67 % of theoretical performance.

This would mean that the 5870 is doing 0.67*2.72 TFLOPs ~= 1.8 TFLOPs on SGEMM. Almost twice the peformance of LRB.'

don't know if its true or note though

This is a good point, if Larrabee had been productized early this year say Q1, it would have been a formidable competitor (under the assumption that this is the true throughput performance), but it has already been exceeded, so it may end up only playing in the midrage.
12-02-2009, 09:03 PM
dinos22

i love how they all got so excited hitting the Teraflop hahaha
12-02-2009, 09:26 PM
Serpentarius

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

This is a good point, if Larrabee had been productized early this year say Q1, it would have been a formidable competitor (under the assumption that this is the true throughput performance), but it has already been exceeded, so it may end up only playing in the midrage.

well .. on the economic side ... midrange gpu is a lucrative bite
by just reducing both ATi and Nvidia sales by 20% each ... it can cause quite a serious damage to them. most users purchase midrange gpus u know

well .. imho it could cause both ATi and Nvidia to end up selling highend gpus ...
but since we all know that intel has the tendency to "encourage" mobo manufacturers to build what they want (or else)

most probrably we can see a great shift in this? :rolleyes:
the flaming gpu wars ... lol
12-02-2009, 09:54 PM
Smartidiot89

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serpentarius

the flaming gpu wars ... lol

We'll have 3 blocks of fanboys arguing that their card is better:D:rofl:
12-02-2009, 10:14 PM
JumpingJack

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serpentarius

well .. on the economic side ... midrange gpu is a lucrative bite
by just reducing both ATi and Nvidia sales by 20% each ... it can cause quite a serious damage to them. most users purchase midrange gpus u know

well .. imho it could cause both ATi and Nvidia to end up selling highend gpus ...
but since we all know that intel has the tendency to "encourage" mobo manufacturers to build what they want (or else)

most probrably we can see a great shift in this? :rolleyes:
the flaming gpu wars ... lol

Personally, I think a 3rd major play in GPU is a good idea, I hope it gets up to bat and at least pushes a ground rule double.

Same for CPUs, a 3rd major CPU maker would be good to have as well.
12-03-2009, 12:27 AM
kl0012

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric66

there is post there saying this 'Anyways I've read that SGEMM on AMD/ATI 5870 has reached 67 % of theoretical performance.

This would mean that the 5870 is doing 0.67*2.72 TFLOPs ~= 1.8 TFLOPs on SGEMM. Almost twice the peformance of LRB.'

don't know if its true or note though

I wonder why there are no official numbers on RV770/870 GPGPU perf in various realworld test (such as SGEMM, DGEMM). After all, AMD positioning GPU as application accelerator. As I understand AMD ACML supports matrix multiplication on GPU but the perf is pretty low (one says 300 GFLOPS on RV770). There are some highly specialized algorithms to extract more flops, but it is not clear if those algorithms are universal enough to use it in the real world.
12-03-2009, 12:41 AM
ajaidev

Quote:

Originally Posted by kl0012

I wonder why there are no official numbers on RV770/870 GPGPU perf in various realworld test (such as SGEMM, DGEMM). After all, AMD positioning GPU as application accelerator. As I understand AMD ACML supports matrix multiplication on GPU but the perf is pretty low (one says 300 GFLOPS on RV770). There are some highly specialized algorithms to extract more flops, but it is not clear if those algorithms are universal enough to use it in the real world.

If we take the 300 GFLOPS on RV770 on face value the RV870 maybe able to perform at-least 600 GFLOPS and thus the 2*RV870 "5970" can do almost 1200 GFLOPS.

When LRB comes out later, a RV970 maybe waiting and if AMD's current trend continues rv970 may as well have equal amounts of shaders as the 2*RV870 "5970" and thus may produce 1200 GFLOPS well at-least more than 1000 Gflops
12-03-2009, 01:15 AM
kl0012

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajaidev

If we take the 300 GFLOPS on RV770 on face value the RV870 maybe able to perform at-least 600 GFLOPS and thus the 2*RV870 "5970" can do almost 1200 GFLOPS.

When LRB comes out later, a RV970 maybe waiting and if AMD's current trend continues rv970 may as well have equal amounts of shaders as the 2*RV870 "5970" and thus may produce 1200 GFLOPS well at-least more than 1000 Gflops

Isn't evergreen based firestream going to be released somewhere in Q2 2010? And assuming how Intel is determined to push LRB we can relay on 45nm. LRB with >32 cores very soon. But this is about GPGPU. Gaming perf is another story of cause.
12-03-2009, 01:31 AM
R101

I want Windows that can use LRB cores as CPU ones! :D

The gains that would bring to the table would be :shocked:
12-03-2009, 02:58 AM
eric66

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serpentarius

well .. on the economic side ... midrange gpu is a lucrative bite
by just reducing both ATi and Nvidia sales by 20% each ... it can cause quite a serious damage to them. most users purchase midrange gpus u know

well .. imho it could cause both ATi and Nvidia to end up selling highend gpus ...
but since we all know that intel has the tendency to "encourage" mobo manufacturers to build what they want (or else)

most probrably we can see a great shift in this? :rolleyes:
the flaming gpu wars ... lol

well ati likes mid range products also so intel must first beat atis mid range products in order to get that share its not that easy. it took 2 succesfull generations for ati to steal only 4 percent or something
12-03-2009, 03:21 AM
Coldon

two pages of arguing and speculation over a single result from a companies own presentation on a single "optimised" benchmark. I wouldn't put too much stock in the number just yet, <sarcasm> cause we all know intel would never optimize a score or misrepresent performance numbers</sarcasm>

yes, it supposedly outperforms current GPUs on a single synthetic test (wow it can multiply matrices together, OMG), once you show me some real world results doing something useful then I'll be impressed. If ATI/Nvidia had a presentation where they gave you a 3dmark score 50% higher than a competitor would you be impressed? I doubt it since it doesn't really represent real world performance and the score can easily be manipulated, so why are people so impressed now?

also the fact is that SGEMM is single precision, I'm curious to see double precision figures as well as the implementation of the SGEMM on the various GPUS. Also remember that the benchmark is being run on the various cards with different implementation and through different interfaces, so its not exactly a good test, if all three implementations ran through openCL on all the cards then it would be a better test. Again speculation and headlines based on a marketing presentation. *sigh...

I'm not biased to either camp, and i think larrabee would be a welcome addition to the market, but do i think its gonna be this super card that revolutionizes the industry, not a chance in hell...
12-03-2009, 03:36 AM
zalbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helloworld_98

150w?

not bad considering that's less than a 5850 and it will be in a league of it's own in GPGPU.

Yeah, but it's 32nm, isn't it?
12-03-2009, 05:08 AM
Nedjo

does anyone knows when does LBR is planned to launch? I mean some kind of solid info?
12-03-2009, 05:29 AM
Calmatory

Quote:

Originally Posted by BulldogPO

It is X86 so softwares should work pretty soon.

Let me guess, you aren't a programmer. Right?
12-03-2009, 05:37 AM
Coldon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Let me guess, you aren't a programmer. Right?

+10000
12-03-2009, 06:58 AM
WaterFlex

wow, thats totally insane chip! What is the future? more cores or less nm ? or both?
12-03-2009, 09:00 AM
Helloworld_98

Quote:

Originally Posted by zalbard

Yeah, but it's 32nm, isn't it?

this one's 45nm :D
12-03-2009, 09:16 AM
Olivon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helloworld_98

this one's 45nm :D

Right :D

A 32 nm final product would be nice for Intel :yepp:

But no leaks about DX performance and drivers stability ... Recent newz about a possible launch on mid-2010 looks a little bit suspicious IMHO :shrug:
12-03-2009, 09:20 AM
marten_larsson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helloworld_98

this one's 45nm :D

But isn't final product supposed to be 32nm and it is at that node that LRB is a 150W TDP card?
12-03-2009, 09:31 AM
kl0012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nedjo

does anyone knows when does LBR is planned to launch? I mean some kind of solid info?

Not a solid info but at least something:
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...n-1h-2010.aspx
late first half of 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by zalbard

Yeah, but it's 32nm, isn't it?

As far as i know the first LRB version was made with 65 nm. tech. Yet i don't know what version was shown by intel.
12-03-2009, 10:09 AM
jcool

Who cares if this thing can run games or not.. Crrrrrunchiiiiiiiing!!! :D
12-03-2009, 10:12 AM
Helloworld_98

Quote:

Originally Posted by marten_larsson

But isn't final product supposed to be 32nm and it is at that node that LRB is a 150W TDP card?

you are correct, so this means that 32nm larrabee is going to be quite amazing, maybe 2TFlops if it's as simple to do as R770 to R870.
12-04-2009, 08:28 AM
saaya

Quote:

Originally Posted by zalbard

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=239176
BSN is slow. :p:

yeah this is over a week old...
12-04-2009, 04:59 PM
eric66

Intel said Friday that its Larrabee graphics processor is delayed and that the chip will initially appear as a software development platform only.

This is a blow to the world's largest chipmaker, which was looking to launch its first discrete (standalone) graphics chip in more than a decade.

"Larrabee silicon and software development are behind where we hoped to be at this point in the project," Intel spokesperson Nick Knupffer said Friday. "As a result, our first Larrabee product will not be launched as a standalone discrete graphics product," he said.

"Rather, it will be used as a software development platform for internal and external use," he added. Intel is not discussing what other versions may appear after the initial software development platform product, or "kit," is launched next year.

Larrabee, a chronically delayed chip, was originally expected to appear in 2008. It was slated to compete with discrete graphics chips from Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices' ATI graphics unit.

Intel would not give a projected date for the Larrabee software development platform and is only saying "next year."

Intel says its plans are unchanged to deliver this month the first chip with graphics integrated onto the CPU. This new Atom processor is referred to as "Pineview" (the platform is called "Pine Trail") and will be targeted at Netbooks.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10409715-64.html

R.I.P larabbbbbeeeeeeeeeeeee :P
12-04-2009, 05:22 PM
Russian

Delayed? Dead to consumers is more like it. Dunno why they even did that Demo TBH.
12-05-2009, 02:28 AM
003

Why have they killed the GPU variant? Performance seemed like it would be quite good...
12-05-2009, 03:09 AM
informal

The thread title should go more like this : " Intel Larrabee finally hits 1TFLOPS - 2.7x faster than nVidia GT200, gets canceled !!!" :(
12-05-2009, 03:37 AM
Nedjo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Face

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynjYu...layer_embedded

"Architecture Evolution On a Collision Course..." ...WITH ICEBERG :D

oh man they were happy at the end of the video when needle finally stroke 1 TFLOPS :rofl:
12-05-2009, 04:27 AM
ajaidev

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

The thread title should go more like this : " Intel Larrabee finally hits 1TFLOPS - 2.7x faster than nVidia GT200, gets canceled !!!" :(

ii captain :p:
12-05-2009, 10:07 AM
YukonTrooper

Quote:

Originally Posted by 003

Why have they killed the GPU variant? Performance seemed like it would be quite good...

Because performance likely sucked. Every gaming demo they had was a complete joke.
12-05-2009, 10:17 AM
Bobsama

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcool

Who cares if this thing can run games or not.. Crrrrrunchiiiiiiiing!!! :D

+1,000,000.
12-05-2009, 11:27 AM
flippin_waffles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobsama

+1,000,000.

With all due respect, who gives a siht about crunching, aside from the very few who actually do it! :D Or are you saying that crunching is an accurate representation of workloads that this thing was typically meant to be used for.
12-05-2009, 12:05 PM
Bobsama

Quote:

Originally Posted by flippin_waffles

With all due respect, who gives a siht about crunching, aside from the very few who actually do it! :D Or are you saying that crunching is an accurate representation of workloads that this thing was typically meant to be used for.

Workloads that we'd expect are actually pretty much top-end. And it's that comp-intensive stuff that Larrabee is most attractive for using. If you were doing CGI, for example, and wanted to keep a platform long-term (which isn't easily possible when changing uArch--x86 to Sun to nVidia to ATI to x86 to ...--you get my point), something x86-based like Larrabee would be a top choice in my opinion. So long as Larrabee remains stable and "cost effective", it'll get a great amount of use. Remember, a decent 650W power supply (ie: Corsair 650TX) would be able to run a pair of Larrabees at 150Wmax/ea plus a full system. That power supply costs about $100. The alternative is to have two or times as many computers WITHOUT Larrabee--making the (probably incorrect) assumption that Larrabee will perform as well as a regular CPU. Modular co-processors are expensive, but the benefits are quite real. Wouldn't you love to run virtual machines on a GPGPU? I know I would.
12-05-2009, 12:20 PM
003

Quote:

Originally Posted by YukonTrooper

Because performance likely sucked. Every gaming demo they had was a complete joke.

Yeah, because they were ray tracing demos. Every GPU currently sucks with that.
12-05-2009, 12:51 PM
flippin_waffles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobsama

Workloads that we'd expect are actually pretty much top-end. And it's that comp-intensive stuff that Larrabee is most attractive for using. If you were doing CGI, for example, and wanted to keep a platform long-term (which isn't easily possible when changing uArch--x86 to Sun to nVidia to ATI to x86 to ...--you get my point), something x86-based like Larrabee would be a top choice in my opinion. So long as Larrabee remains stable and "cost effective", it'll get a great amount of use. Remember, a decent 650W power supply (ie: Corsair 650TX) would be able to run a pair of Larrabees at 150Wmax/ea plus a full system. That power supply costs about $100. The alternative is to have two or times as many computers WITHOUT Larrabee--making the (probably incorrect) assumption that Larrabee will perform as well as a regular CPU. Modular co-processors are expensive, but the benefits are quite real. Wouldn't you love to run virtual machines on a GPGPU? I know I would.

Yeah, maybe. However, Intel hasn't been the best at keeping promises lately, ie. execution has been very poor. Right from SSD's to the promises of LRB to it's inability to work with Hyper-V, so i'll wait until I see real hardware from Intel before I pass judgment on it. Then again, I don't crunch so obviously i'm looking at it from an entirely different viewpoint. :D
12-05-2009, 01:18 PM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by flippin_waffles

With all due respect, who gives a siht about crunching, aside from the very few who actually do it! :D Or are you saying that crunching is an accurate representation of workloads that this thing was typically meant to be used for.

Lol.. you pretty much shat on a huge part of the xs community... :ROTF:
12-05-2009, 03:08 PM
flippin_waffles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Lol.. you pretty much shat on a huge part of the xs community... :ROTF:

Yeah, I didn't mean it that way. All I meant was that it is a very small part of the market.
12-05-2009, 04:06 PM
Hornet331

Didn't you know anandtech is a shameless "intel bumper", so everything on that site are blunt lies... according to a certain group... :p:
12-05-2009, 11:40 PM
Glow9

Quote:

Originally Posted by 003

Yeah, because they were ray tracing demos. Every GPU currently sucks with that.

Pretty sure 99% of people could care less about ray tracing. I mean most of the games we play are still DX9. Whats gonna sell something nobody is going to use or something than play whats out there. I still feel sorry for all the suckers who bought PhysX cards, wait no I don't.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:55 AM.

XtremeSystems