Exclusive: Intel Larrabee 5 times faster than Nvidia, AMD

[gosh]

There are many other reasons why Intel has recaptured the market share back to 80% and why they hold 80%. One reason though is what we are talking about.

Yes there is a lot of reasons but the chipset isn't any of them.

I don't think that AMD was thinking on companies having a better graphics, maybe it was the HTPC market.
Another example is 4870X2, this is for the gamers. Different hardware for different markets.

[B.E.E.F.]

I know this is OT but I am interested to know what you can do on intel computers that you can't do on AMD computers because of the chipset.

If this is the reason why intel has 80% market share it must be somethin increadible...

That and shady business practices. AMD has been complaining of their tactics since the Athlon XP days when they were paying OEMs not to use AMD parts.

AMDs status today is only 80% their fault. Barcelona anyone?

[JumpingJack]

Yes there is a lot of reasons but the chipset isn't any of them.

I don't think that AMD was thinking on companies having a better graphics, maybe it was the HTPC market.
Another example is 4870X2, this is for the gamers. Different hardware for different markets.

Ok Gosh, this will pointless.... let's drop it. The fact remains, AMD is behind on the management side of the equation and the ATI acquisition still need time to together a competing solution.

[Bo_Fox]

I never said they can't do computers, Gosh. What I said is Intel offers up compelling features that AMD has not, at least not until recently, and even today Intel still provides functionality that AMD does not have. And these are features architected into the chipset.

Heck, AMD went out and mortgaged themselves to the eyeballs to try to be able to bring a platform to market that can compete.

You continue to be of the opinion that if AMD is not viewed upon as tops in everything that somehow this is bashing AMD... this is not bashing AMD this is simply pointing out the obvious. There are many other reasons why Intel has recaptured the market share back to 80% and why they hold 80%. One reason though is what we are talking about. Intel holds the lion share of the commercial market. AMD holds a huge market share in retail, at least here in the US, surpassing Intel by a wide margin. There are again many reasons for this.

Even today, AMD seems to be focusing on the wrong things if they want to crack that commercial space. Just take a moment to listen... AMD touts their platform advantages as being better at graphics -- specifically, 3D gaming and HD decoding. Now think about it, you're an IT manager who is charged with outfitting your company with HW for each employee.... you have two choices. Computer maker A touts and supports being able to play games with acceptable frame rates and watch Blu-Rays smoothly without taxing the CPU, computer maker B advertises and supports being able to track your company assets, administer them remotely even without a functional OS. As a guy who will ultimately need to maintain these computers and wanting to maximize productivity, which one sounds more compelling for their feature set?

Nah, I think it goes way back before the decisions that the IT manager makes. To begin with, Intel has contract with OEM and retail systems manufacturers to ship with their CPUs and chipsets (the whole bundle). Remember the Centrino scheme--how it had to have all the Intel hardware in order to earn the Centrino name? That is how Intel has been approaching the PC system bundlers for more than a decade now.

There have been so many "under-the-table" transactions that were "monopolistic" or anti-competitive. Like the contract with Dell that they could not sell AMD processors, remember?

Did you actually say that an IGP enables a computer to track the company assets? You've gone too far trying to prove your point! No offense, but that was some humor there...

[Anth Seebel]

Sweet news indeed, this will surely inspire Nvidia to pour more $$ into R&D.

More competition = consumers win.

[JumpingJack]

Did you actually say that an IGP enables a computer to track the company assets? You've gone too far trying to prove your point! No offense, but that was some humor there...

No no.... Intel sells a business solution with IGP, it is not the feature of the IGP (i.e. Blu-Ray decoding) that makes it attractive to the commercial space. Within their chipset is features that are useful, you did not fully comprehend the argument or you don't really know what a chipset does ....

Think of it logistically, two chipsets one from computer maker A and one from computer maker B. Computer maker A sets apart their platform by touting their IGP can play games at 15 FPS (50% faster) and decode Blu-Ray smoothly ... computer maker B makes an adequate IGP for rendering desktops, but touts their strength with chipset features like remote system management, asset tracking, complete validation etc. etc. .... which one sounds more appealing to an IT department whose job is to ensure the most productivity from their work force?

But it is this Centrino platform approach that has really established the idea, in my opinon. Intel could bundle up a package, validate it, and save IT departments costs of testing... they could then turn around and provide them with a stable platform program (not stable in the sense you understand it, rather a platform that would not change and would always work with a system image). These are features that large corporate IT departments value -- it cuts costs, downtime, and maintenance.

I am unaware of any contract with Dell not to sell AMD computers, I am aware that every few years Dell would threaten Intel with going AMD as leverage in negotiations -- ultimately, as I have followed the story, I do recall Dell actual is selling AMD systems.

Jack

[tajoh111]

5x is the expected level I would think larrabee should produce. If its going to be release in 2010 and it going to be worth a damn 5 x is the minimum for this to actually fullfill hype.

Even if it does offer 10x performance, I don't know how intel is going to get the drivers right. Larrabee is unlike anything before and thus driver will be had to made from scratch. With all the cores and everything, I can imagine alot of issue that we haven't seen before appear. E.g Microstutter started when we began going multichip.

I think we have to worry about driver because I can already imagine larrabee killing 3dmark, but having issues when it comes to games.

[shiznit93]

5x is the expected level I would think larrabee should produce. If its going to be release in 2010 and it going to be worth a damn 5 x is the minimum for this to actually fullfill hype.

Even if it does offer 10x performance, I don't know how intel is going to get the drivers right. Larrabee is unlike anything before and thus driver will be had to made from scratch. With all the cores and everything, I can imagine alot of issue that we haven't seen before appear. E.g Microstutter started when we began going multichip.

I think we have to worry about driver because I can already imagine larrabee killing 3dmark, but having issues when it comes to games.

microstutter is a side effect of AFR, this has nothing to do with Larrabee.

A completely different and much more capable team than the people responsible for their IGPs is working on Larrabee, made up of some of the best graphics programmers/engineers in the industry that intel has been hiring/buying over the last couple years is working on Larrabee. As Tom Forsyth said on his blog, they have been laying low and taking care of business. Intel's barebones drivers for their IGPs (which do what they need to do given that market) are absolutely no indication of Larrabee software quality. Underestimate Larrabee at your own risk, I have a feeling that ATI and Nvidia will witness the firepower of what will soon be a fully armed and operational battlestation.

[tajoh111]

I am not saying microstuttering will appear. But with new architectures and in this case an entirely new ways of doing things, new problems will occur. I think this is almost a certainty.

I am not underestimating larrabee at all. I am saying 5x performance is the minimum intel has to complete. But until Intel proves itself, I think a healthy dose of skepticism is needed until Intel proves itself in the graphic arena not the processor one.

So far in the graphic arena intel has done squat for performance. Intel is the greatest seller of graphics solution because of their integrated graphics sales. But in performance and not sales, both NV and AMD, have products which are faster integrated solutions and at the same time these MB still have the same cost as any intel one.

Yeah we can't underestimate INTEL but at the same time lets not overhype this thing. If your the competition(your intel or AMD), you over-prepare so you have something to counter it with. If its the best performing thing ever, your screwed but atleast you know you done all you can. If it matches expectations, you can fight back. If it has crap performance, then you are basically shooting fish in a barrel.

If your us, just graphics fans with no real ownership, whose fate is not tied to intel at all(although fanboys may think differently). The only thing we should care about is performance in graphics, because this is the only thing that will effect our lives; although not significantly. And because of this we should take everything with a grain of salt and expect nothing exceptional. Because until we see real evidence, real benches, we are just setting are self up for disappointment.