Intel's Larrabee graphics processor delayed, downsized to mere software development platform
By Paul Miller 
posted December 5th 2009 3:45AM
posted December 5th 2009 3:45AM
posted December 5th 2009 3:45AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Intel has been unable to make a decent GPU for a while now. Why dont they just license IP from nVidia and put it on their chips?
I know nVidia doesnt sell their IP .. but they would for a price wouldn't they?
@JS Making a stand-alone GPU isn't really the point though. Larrabee is part of the plan to integrate the CPU and GPU, and Intel doesn't really want to have to rely on Nvidia for that.
@JS
well nvidia would love that kind ego trip
Crush them Nvidia & AMD!
Intel just seeing how much nVidia failing lately and decided to delay larrabee.
So I guess Intel didn't quite execute.
^ Don't listen to those guys intel, keep going, fight compete innovate
create new products and compete for my dollar, pricewar! Innovation! Make sure you keep it legit or the ftc might get pissy with you on my behalf!
in the end I may not buy any of your or your competitors products, but you have to try and please me anyway! You have zero chance getting my sweet sweet money if you don't
Dance puppets, Dance!
@windzilla lol lame
@kakashi6992 yea well your so's your face
I'm hoping that amd manages to complete fusion before intel can complete their version of it, we need a price war again, intel's prices are increasing again, i7 showed that. amd can proide processors with lower performance, at a much lower price, so much that price/performance is in some cases in favour of amd.
Nvidia and intel though need to get back into the graphics game, as new generation = higher prices, no company is in it for the happy feelings.
@Mike43110 yah.. amd providing lower price because THEY HAVE TO.
@Mike43110
Too late, Intel already has silicon for their CPU-GPU single package. AMD is not where near that.
Something people fail to grasp is that Intel actually is #1 in graphics. Not in performance but in the sheer quantity of products that uses their graphic portfolio (integrated graphics).
@Andr by your logic, Toyota by sheer volume is higher placed than, say, Porsche... but even though Porsche sells less and charges more per unit, it goes so much faster and is more desireable than a run-of-the-mill inte... erm... Toyota (sticking with the analogy of course).
@Andr
this is the analogy: free candy with purchase, but not everyone eats candy since it's bad for teeth and not good for hyperactive people
@buoy Yes but that doesn't mean that Toyota couldn't do something like start a luxury brand that took away a lot of Mercedes-Benz sales, or that Intel couldn't gun for the dedicated graphics market similarly. The Mercedes Benz S-Class used to be the only serious luxo-barge in the game but in the US market the LS easily outsells the S-Class even though initially people laughed at the idea of Toyota getting into the luxury car game.
So while your average Porsche might be fast of course it would be, it's a $100,000 sports car. There's just very little money to be made in that segment (most of Porsche's income is derived from investments, which is also why they lost so much money that VW just purchased them against most of their executives' wishes-they had no money and no real choice), so Toyota hasn't really fielded any competition in Porsche's usual price range.
Just look at the Lexus LFA-it's a Toyota but it outperforms most of Porsche's current lineup, but Toyota chose to keep it a 500 piece limited production ultra-high-end car made out of insanely expensive to manufacture materials instead of using cheaper aluminum and steel that would have put it head to head with something like a 911 Turbo. Because the purpose there was to halo-car the Lexus lineup and not to try to go after a market where nobody makes any money anyway. Chevy doesn't make money on it's Corvettes, and Porsche is bleeding money so why would they.
ATI and nVidia should breathe a sigh of relief that Intel has failed for now, but it'd be idiotic for them to just laugh, because Intel has a lot of money in the bank and they've clearly decided to go after the discrete graphics market. This particular implementation is likely a failure for that purpose but assuming that intel will fail in the long run would have been like assuming intel was doomed just because netburst was terrible. Intel is the kind of company where there'll be multiple teams working on insane backup plans to the backup plan, so if they've really, really, decided to commit to going after the discrete graphics market then everyone else will have to watch out.
However, the real reason Intel even went after this market wasn't because they wanted to sell $400 gaming cards-they just wanted ATI and nVidia out of the general computing and HPC space. With GPUs becoming capable of running useful software nVidia and ATI are basically going into intel's home turf, so they're developing this more as a counter-attack or defense of sorts than as any real attempt at having the highest frame rates. Which is why it makes sense that it's basically become a software platform-their real goal is just to kick ATI and nVidia out of the HPC market so they don't someday threaten intel's bread and butter operations.
And while it might not be as fast they could just dump it for a lot cheaper a la netburst. No matter what though you can bet that intel does *not* want ATI and nVidia making any inroads especially into general computing so don't expect them to just give up.
It would be nice to see what kind of GPU Intel could come up with if they really put their collective minds into it. In the past they have always done a half-hearted job, and while they are #1 in volume, they are far from that in terms of speed.
I, for one, would like to see more competition in the GPU world. Nvidia has historically been my favorite graphics company, but they seem to be going the proprietary route when it comes to GPU-rendering in 3D apps which turns of off. ATI has never had the driver stability that is pretty important in 3D work. Would be nice to see what the company that pretty much invented the IC and has been the leader in the CPU world for decades now, can come up with in the high-performance GPU world.
@Hazdaz
I completely agree that this is bad news for innovation in the graphics field. My fear is that Intel won't be able to compete on performance, NVidia shows signs of exiting the high-end dedicated graphics hardware market altogether, and AMD will remain the lone - and thus increasingly expensive - choice for PC gamers like myself. Larabee was exciting both because it would introduce a different paradigm for graphics hardware and because it would set a fire under NVidia/AMD. Bummer.
No one cares how advanced onboard graphics is.
@Kurian Not true!
@Kurian
Oh, what about the ION.
There is nothing wrong with integrated video. It is the ones that use shared memory architecture that are the slow pokes. I have seen the lowly GMA 950 play DVD's very nicely on a 42" HD display with only 64mb dedicated Vram.
Moving to hybrid will be much the same story. The only advantage will be motherboard real estate.
@tlmck
I have seen my PII laptop circa 1999 play DVDs, that's not the issue. Intel's lousy GMA 9xx graphics can't decode 1080p, or even 720p h.264 in hardware. They have effectively zero 3D processing capability, which doesn't just make them suck for games, but even for displaying Vista and Win7's "fancy" UI. Shared vs dedicated memory makes a difference in gaming applications, but there are plenty of other applications where GMA fails all on its own.
@tlmck
>GMA 950
>64mb dedicated Vram
Dohoho, you almost got me there.
"Meanwhile we can look forward to Intel's first example of a GPU / CPU hybrid in the upcoming Pineview Atom processor, which kicks those lackluster integrated graphics to the curb and moves everything onto the CPU."
Actually, the GPU that Pineview is integrating onto the CPU die is the same crappy GMA graphics that have been burdening netbooks for the last two years. It should improve size and power consumption, but it will NOT improve graphics performance. Still no #D chops to speak of, still no HD video decoding, still no PAP compliance for HD audio bitstreaming.
are you serious? Intel can't make a competitive graphic chip?? I think Nvidia's CEO 's can of "whoop ass" is coming true!!!
I just hope it doesn't go from hardware->software->vaporware :P
@karthikrg
The next evolution in the path is Tupperware.
Intel's not my favorite company, but I think the Larrabee concept is pretty neat and it makes me a little sad that they're struggling with it....
Great so the graphics industry will continue to stagnate with the traditional model of: lets make it faster instead of more efficient. Both ATI and Nvidia both suck ass. Yes their hardware is fast but it sucks down power like a New York hooker. Desktops can handle this. Laptops...not so much unless you want a 9lbs beast on your hands. I had hoped that Intel's entrance to this market with something original (Think moving from P4 to an i7) would spur Nvidia and ATI to really try and figure out how to do things more efficiently instead of brute forcing it. Instead this happens and now we get to see those two shrug and continue the equivalent of the Mhz\Ghz race. There needs to be a game changer in that industry and it isn't going to come from either ATI or Nvidia, IMHO. I'd love to be wrong on this. But everything either of those companies has been promoting isn't suggesting more efficient. And again while this isn't a concern for desktops who can handle pretty much anything thrown at them....laptops are another matter. Take a look at most laptop gaming rigs and you will see that most if not all have issues with heat or power in some form or another. Acer, Alienware, Asus, etc. Doesn't matter.
Um, does 9400M/Ion tell you anything? 9 lbs? Not quite.
@jarek: Ion uses even more energy than the competing (shitty) Intel part.
If they wanted to compete with Intel - a boat which they've now missed in this area, due to the integrated chips - they should've had something that would both improve graphics *and* increase battery life *and* at a relatively small cost premium. Which you'd think would be possible given how awful Intel's GPUs are. Oh well.
Then again, Nvidia have Tegra, which presumably is much lower power (both senses), although the current version suffers from an old-news ARM11 processing core. Maybe current netbooks are 'missing the point' by using the relatively energy-hungry Intel CPUs instead of ARM-based SOCs. Unfortunately, there's a little operating system issue there... (And even if Windows ran on them, which it doesn't and won't, Cortex A8s are too slow to run it well, never mind ARM11s.)
Can't say I'm too surprised, they had a lackluster showing at IDF awhile back.
Also Engadget Pine Trail will be compatible with Ion.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15190
Which is very welcome news.
I don't think anyone at Intel knows how to make a GPU...I mean, how else can you explain this and the GMA chips?
@(Unverified)
Well, next time you control 60% of the graphics board market like intel does... sure you can tell them that. Until that happens, I am sure you could not even mention a single significant HW feature of a GPU design, or mechanism.
It is so funny in a sad kind of way to read so many kids talking about technology as if they knew anything about it other than booting windows and browsing the net. LOL.
@(Unverified) (note: I'm the person this dick replied to. Why am I marked as (Unverified), again?)
Even if what you are saying is true (unlikely), it is only because of the near total implementation of the GMA chipset on every Intel OEM mobo (amongst others) starting back in 2006, and the majority of desktops and laptops sold today have the GMA chipset included because it's cheaper than having a discrete GPU or separate graphics card (depending on the form) (remember, nVidia didn't jump on the integrated bandwagon until a year or so ago, ATI until after they were bought out by AMD). Your argument essentially hinges on the fact that most consumers didn't have a say on the matter.
And I will talk trash: The GMA chipset, up until the X3000 series (accounting for up to 60% of the GMA userbase), can barely handle the load of most video formats, including popular ones such as WMV or MP4 (the latter, especially concerning those run through the h.264 codec). It doesn't bother rendering Flash completely, thus transfering the load to the CPU at about 50% and slowing everything down. And let's not even bother talking about gaming capability, which really isn't what these things are built for anyway (though most were incapable of running popular mid-range games dating back to 2003 at even 30 fps. 2004...slow for a 2006 GPU...think about that). And let's face it: If Intel actually put development time into developing an effective integrated GPU, they could challenge ATI and nVidia very easily. But they don't. It's almost like they don't care.
P.S. If you're going to be a fanboy and talk trash, at least offer some credible counter-evidence. And learn how to avoid writing run-on sentences.
@(Unverified) The actual design goal of GMA is to be the cheapest things that works at all. By that (crappy) standard it is a success.
@(Unverified) It's a CPU which emulates Direct3D pipeline in software, and NOT a GPU.
Larrabee, follow that car!
Failure to READ the actual statement.
The Intel spokesman did not say that Larrabee was downgraded to a software development platform, just the first version. Since this was actually the original plan all along, it's not much of a downgrade.
I'm sure Nvidia is loving this. Nevermind they're getting their asses kicked by ATI at the moment.
hahahahahahhahahah.a..a ahahahahah.... ohh. the truth hurts i guess.
http://images.nvidia.com/blogs/ntersect/feature_image03.jpg
Is Intel paying this way of recent messing with nVidia!?! The currently running dispute between Intel and nVidia !?!
Well, that just plain sucks!
I hate to be picky, but Larrabee was not a GPU. It is a bunch of Intel CPUs on a chip. Gamers liked it because they cold write software for it using normal Intel Architecture software tools.