OK, I'm not an Intel fan. But Larrabee might change what future GPU's should be. What do you think of it?

Intel's Pat Gelsinger said Larrabee's die will be larger than NVIDIA's 65nm GT200 at 600mm^2. Historically, large die means lower production yield. Ergo, low yield = low clock speed = high heat = high price.

AMD and NVIDIA's GPU's are becoming more programmable so Larrabee's flexible advantage might diminish. Plus, the next-gen GPU's also have radical architectures (MIMD, allegedly) that are more efficient. Larrabee's tactique of emulating DirectX and OpenGL makes me doubt of its performance. Does that mean I have to have a Core i7 just to do all those emulation and get the performance I want? Hardware driven processing in realtime is so much better.

Pardon me for bashing Intel. However, please share your insight.

http://en.hardspell.com/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=5616

Personally, it does not matter. Which ever is most affordable and ready/easy to get wins my vote.

In all seriousness, Intel should just stick with their CPU line, they should let the more experience people do the graphics. XD

Big die = low yield as the wafer can only get oh so big. >>

But, eh, I might be misguided as the last time I skim(didn't really read) about this was earlier this year. XP

I have a personal stigma against big die. Feels flimsier and higher failing rate because of the complexity. Small and efficient aka RV770 is the best.

All things started out big. Even my old voodoo 3gfx card had a bloody huge die. 8MB for all gaming purpose. XD

I think what Intel is trying to do is filling up low end market sector as graphic chip producers are now making chips for the medium to high end market. They technically do not cater for lower ends but we do still see them around. Just figuring they are filling the gap left behind. And most users of discreet GPC are normal users who does not even game much. Maybe even just simple gaming, unlike us hardcore "push-to-the-limit" users. XD

PS: AMD is also doing the same, except they own ATI, so no differences there,

Problem is Intel always under deliver and under perform their graphic solution. Look at 965G to G45, any changes? It's not viable to produce 1.7+ billion transistors for 'low-end' market. If Larrabee can perform better than GT200 with the extra gates (transistor count / efficiency?) then there might be hope.

Always fun to see RM1800 AMD Puma beating RM3000 Intel GM45 lappies in games. L4D and Spore are popular now. Too bad Intel solution doesn't have enough omph to deliver even the basic experience.

Yes Metro..i too have the same thoughts..

This is not the right way to post~ It's just a number
It's thread necromancy
Go post in active topics