Intel SIMD Accelerator promises to boost MID performance
By Donald Melanson 
posted March 18th 2009 4:16PM
posted March 18th 2009 4:16PM
Intel isn't offering a whole lot of details on this one just yet, but the company has let out an early word of a new and improved SIMD Accelerator it's currently working on, which promises to boost the graphics performance of MIDs while also consuming ten times less power than the accelerators now used. The SIMD itself (or Single Instruction, Multiple Data) works by executing multiple computing instructions at once, while apparently allows for onscreen graphic images to be "done faster." Of course, Intel isn't saying at all about an actual release just yet, but it does say that the project is "aimed at enhancing future Intel products," so it seems reasonable to assume that it'll eventually find its way into a standard MID platform.
[Via SlashGear]
[Via SlashGear]
no dude, SIMD does NOT work "by executing multiple computing instructions at once." this implies that different instructions are executed at the same time, which is not the case.
it works exactly how it sounds, by executing multiple instances of the SAME instruction on different pieces of data. (single instruction, multiple data. durr)
but yes, it's useful for vector applications, like graphics where you want to run the same instruction on every pixel.
It seems to be very similar to ARM's cortex family.
I wonder how this 'improvement' will affect battery life and how will it compare with upcoming cortex A9 which will probably appear on the market on the same time. This will be an interesting fight.
" while apparently allows for onscreen graphic images to be "done faster." "
Yes, SIMD, exactly what a GPU does too.... so intel is making a somehow different kind of graphics accelerator for MIDs. Dont know why this article needed to have that skepticism...
Woot! SIMD-on-a-35-pin-SIMM!! Who wouldn't want a gaming-machine-in-a-wall-wart?
[hint: count the 'pins' on the image]
Thank you for saying this =P Seriously, how the hell could you guys (Engadget) get this so wrong? Do some damned research.
That was meant as a reply to Kevin =P
someone's going to say that this sucks