If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Intel details future 'Larrabee' graphics chip
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10005391-64.html
Intel has disclosed details on a chip that will compete directly with Nvidia and ATI and may take it into unchartered technological and market-segment waters. Larrabee will be a stand-alone chip, meaning it will be very different than the low-end--but widely used--integrated graphics that Intel now offers as part of the silicon that accompanies its processors. And Larrabee will be based on the universal Intel x86 architecture. The first Larrabee product will be "targeted at the personal computer market," according to Intel. This means the PC gaming market--putting Nvidia and AMD-ATI directly into Intel's sights. Nvidia and AMD-ATI currently dominate the market for "discrete" or stand-alone graphics processing units. http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/200...ee-2-small.jpg Larry Seiler (standing, middle), a senior Intel engineer, and Stephen Junkins (sitting, right), an Intel graphics software architect, speak at a briefing on Larrabee chip, due in 2009-2010. (Credit: Brooke Crothers) As Intel sees it, Larrabee combines the best attributes of a central processing unit (CPU) with a graphics processor. "The thing we need is an architecture that combines the full programmability of the CPU with the kinds of parallelism and other special capabilities of graphics processors. And that architecture is Larrabee," Larry Seiler, a senior principal engineer in Intel's Visual Computing Group, said at a briefing on Larrabee in San Francisco last week. "It is not a GPU as many have mistakenly described it, but it can do most graphics functions," Jon Peddie of Jon Peddie Research, said in an article he posted Friday about Larrabee. "It looks like a GPU and acts like a GPU but actually what it's doing is introducing a large number of x86 cores into your PC," said Intel spokesperson Nick Knupffer, alluding to the myriad ways Larrabee could be used beyond just graphics processing. In addition to the PC, high- performance computing and workstations are two potential markets that were also mentioned. Intel describes it in a statement as "the industry's first many-core x86 Intel architecture." The chipmaker currently offers quad-core processors and will offer eight-core processors based on its Nehalem architecture, but Larrabee is expected to have dozens of cores and, later, possibly hundreds. The number of cores in each Larrabee chip may vary, according to market segment. Intel showed a slide with core counts ranging from 8 to 48, claiming performance scales almost linearly as more cores are added: that is, 16 cores will offer twice the performance of eight cores. The individual cores in Larrabee are derived from the Intel Pentium processor and "then we added 64-bit instructions and multi-threading," Seiler said. Each core has 256 kilobytes of level-2 cache allowing the size of the cache to scale with the total number of cores, according to Seiler. And application programming interfaces (APIs) such as Microsoft's DirectX and Apple's Open CL can be tapped. "Larrabee does not require a special API. Larrabee will excel on standard graphics APIs," he said. "So existing games will be able to run on Larrabee products." So, what is Larrabee's market potential? Today, the graphics chip market is approaching 400 million units a year and has consolidated into a handful of suppliers. "And of that population, two suppliers, ATI and Nvidia, own 98 percent of the discrete GPU business." according to Peddie. "And the trend line indicates a flattening to decline in the business...However, Intel is no light-weight start up, and to enter the market today a company has to have a major infrastructure, deep IP (intellectual property), and marketing prowess--Intel has all that and more," Peddie said. http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/200...lide-small.jpg Larrabee combines aspects of a CPU and GPU (Credit: Intel) Though more details will be provided at Siggraph 2008, some key Larrabee features: Larrabee programming model: supports a variety of highly parallel applications, including those that use irregular data structures. This enables development of graphics APIs, rapid innovation of new graphics algorithms, and true general purpose computation on the graphics processor with established PC software development tools. Software-based scheduling: Larrabee features task scheduling which is performed entirely with software, rather than in fixed function logic. Therefore rendering pipelines and other complex software systems can adjust their resource scheduling based each workload's unique computing demand. Execution threads: Larrabee architecture supports four execution threads per core with separate register sets per thread. This allows the use of a simple efficient in-order pipeline, but retains many of the latency-hiding benefits of more complex out-of-order pipelines when running highly parallel applications. Ring network: Larrabee uses a 1024 bits-wide, bi-directional ring network (i.e., 512 bits in each direction) to allow agents to communicate with each other in low latency manner resulting in super fast communication between cores. "A key characteristic of this vector processor is a property we call being vector complete...You can run 16 pixels in parallel, 16 vertices in parallel, or 16 more general program indications in parallel," Seiler said. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Intel details future 'Larrabee' graphics chip
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Intel details future 'Larrabee' graphics chip
An interesting project, but man, now the hype machine starts up... :-(
-Miles -- Saa, shall we dance? (from a dance-class advertisement) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Intel details future 'Larrabee' graphics chip
I liked this idea better the first time around, when it was called the
Atari 2600. Is Intel planning to bundle a fire extinguisher with these CPUs? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Intel details future 'Larrabee' graphics chip
A very pessimistic Larrabee article by Peter Glaskowsky....I recall
him also being negative about CELL during its development. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13512_3-10006184-23.html Intel's Larrabee--more and less than meets the eye Posted by Peter Glaskowsky Intel announced on Monday that it will be presenting a paper at Siggraph 2008 about its "many-core" Larrabee architecture, which will be the basis of future Intel graphics processors. The paper itself, however, has already been published, and I was able to get a copy of it. (Unfortunately, as you'll see at that link, the paper is normally available only to members of the Association for Computing Machinery.) http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/200...-1_540x406.jpg Intel's Larrabee includes "many" cores, on-chip memory controllers, a wide ring bus for on-chip communications, and a small amount of graphics-specific logic. (Credit: Intel) The paper is a pretty thorough summary of Intel's motives for developing Larrabee and the major features of the new architecture. Basically, Larrabee is about using many simple x86 cores--more than you'd see in the central processor (CPU) of the system--to implement a graphics processor (GPU). This concept has received a lot of attention since Intel first started talking about it last year. The paper also answers perhaps the biggest unanswered question about Larrabee--what are the cores, and how can Intel put "many" of them on a chip when desktop CPUs are still moving from two to four cores? Intel describes the Larrabee cores as "derived from the Pentium processor," but I think perhaps this is an oversimplification. The design shown in the paper is only vaguely Pentium-like, with one execution unit for scalar (single-operation) instructions and one for vector (multiple-operation) instructions. http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/200...-2_540x357.jpg The Larrabee core contains only two execution units: one for scalar operations, one for vector operations. (Credit: Intel) That's the basic answer: Larrabee cores just have less going on. A quad-core desktop processor might have six or more execution units, and a lot of special logic to let it reorder instructions and execute code past conditional branches just in case it can guess the direction of the branch correctly. This complexity is necessary to maximize performance in a lot of desktop software, but it's not needed for linear, predictable code--which is what we usually find in 3D- rendering software. But the vector unit in Larrabee is much more powerful than anything in older Intel processors--or even in the current Core 2 chips--because 3D rendering needs to do a lot of vector processing. The vector unit can perform 16 single-precision floating-point operations in parallel from a single instruction, which works out to 512 bits wide--great for graphics, though it would be overkill for a general-purpose processor, which is why the vector units in mainstream CPUs are 128 or 256 bits wide at most. The new vector unit also supports three-operand instructions, probably including the classic "A * B + C" operation that is so common in many applications, including graphics. With three operands and two calculations per instruction, the peak throughput of a single Larrabee core should be 32 operations per cycle, and that's just what the paper claims. I say "probably" because the Siggraph paper doesn't describe exactly what operations will be implemented in the vector unit, but I suspect this part of the Larrabee design is related to Intel's Advanced Vector Extensions, announced last April. The first implementations of AVX for desktop CPUs will apparently begin with a 256-bit design, another indication of how unusual it is for Larrabee to have a 512-bit vector unit. The multithreading factor Intel also built four-way multithreading into the Larrabee cores. Each Larrabee core can save all the register data from four separate threads in hardware, so that most thread-switch operations can be performed almost instantly rather than having to save one set of registers to main memory and load another. This approach is a reasonable compromise for reducing thread-switching overhead, although it probably consumes a significant amount of silicon. Note that this kind of multithreading in Larrabee is very different from the Hyper-Threading technology Intel uses on Pentium 4, Atom, and future Nehalem processors. Hyper-Threading (aka simultaneous multi- threading) allows multiple threads to execute simultaneously on a single core, but this only makes sense when there are many execution units in the core. Larrabee's two execution units are not enough to share this way. All of these differences prove rather conclusively that Larrabee's cores are not the same as the cores in Intel's Atom processors (also known as Silverthorne). That surprised me; the Atom core seemed fairly appropriate for the Larrabee project. All that really should have been necessary was to graft a wider vector unit onto the Atom design. But now I suppose the Atom and Larrabee projects have been completely independent from one another all along. Intel won't say how many cores are in the first chip. The paper describes an on-chip ring network that connects the cores. The network is 512 bits wide. Interestingly, the paper mentions that there are two different ring designs--one for Larrabee chips with up to 16 cores, and one for larger chips. That suggests Intel has chips planned with relatively small numbers of cores, possibly as few as four or eight. Such small implementations might be appropriate for Intel's future integrated-graphics chip sets, but as such they will be very slow by comparison with contemporary discrete GPUs, just as Intel's current products are. Larrabee provides some graphics-specific logic in addition to the CPU cores, but not much. The paper says that many tasks traditionally performed by fixed-function circuits, such as rasterization and blending, are performed in software on Larrabee. This is likely to be a disadvantage for Larrabee, since a software solution will inevitably consume more power than optimized logic--and consume computing resources that could have been used for other purposes. I suspect this was a time-to-market decision: tape out first, write software later. The paper says Larrabee does provide fixed-function logic for texture filtering because filtering requires steps that don't fit as well into a CPU core. I presume there's other fixed-function logic in Larrabee, but the paper doesn't say. Larrabee's rendering code uses binning, a technique that has been used in many software and hardware 3D solutions over the years, sometimes under names such as "tiling" and "chunking." Binning divides the screen into regions and identifies which polygons will appear in each region, then renders each region separately. It's a sensible choice for Larrabee, since each region can be assigned to a separate core. Binning also reduces memory bandwidth, since it's easier for each core to keep track of the lower number of polygons assigned to it. The cores are less likely to need to go out to main memory for additional information. The numbers crunch The paper gives some performance numbers, but they're hard to interpret. For example, game benchmarks were constructed by running a scene through a game, then taking only widely separated frames for testing on the Intel design. In the F.E.A.R. game, for example, only every 100th frame was used in the tests. This creates an unusually difficult situation for Larrabee; there's likely to be much less reuse of information from one frame to the next. But given that limitation of the test procedure, the results don't look very good. To render F.E.A.R. at 60 frames per second--a common definition of good-enough gaming performance--required from 7 to 25 cores, assuming each was running at 1GHz. Although there's a range here depending on the complexity of each frame, good gameplay requires maintaining a high frame rate--so it's possible that F.E.A.R. would, in practice, require at least a 16-core Larrabee processor. And that's about the performance of a 2006-vintage Nvidia or Advanced Micro Devices/ATI graphics chip. This year's chips are three to four times as fast. In other words, unless Intel is prepared to make big, hot Larrabee chips, I don't think it's going to be competitive with today's best graphics chips on games. Intel can certainly do that-- no other semiconductor company on Earth can afford to make big chips the way Intel can-- but that would ruin Intel's gross margins, which are how Wall Street judges the company. Also, Intel's newest processor fabs are optimized for high-performance logic, like that used in Core 2 processors. Larrabee runs more slowly, suggesting it could be economically manufactured on ASIC product lines... but Intel's ASIC lines are all relatively old, refitted CPU lines. Nvidia, by comparison, gets around this problem by designing its chips from the beginning to be made in modern ASIC factories, chiefly those run by TSMC. Although these factories are a generation behind Intel's in process technology, they're much less expensive to operate. So this may be a situation where Intel's process edge doesn't mean as much as it does in the CPU business. The Larrabee programming model also supports nongraphics applications. Since it's fundamentally just a multicore x86 processor, it can do anything a regular CPU can do. Intel's paper even uses Sun Microsystems' term, Throughput Computing, for multicore processing. The Larrabee cores aren't nearly as powerful as ordinary notebook or desktop processors for most applications. Real Larrabee chips could be faster or slower than the 1GHz reference frequency used in the paper, but there's definitely only one execution unit for the scalar operations that make up the bulk of operating-system and office software. That means a single Larrabee core would feel slow even when compared with a Pentium III processor at the same frequency, never mind a Core 2 Duo. But with such a strong vector unit, a Larrabee core could be very good at video encoding and other tasks, especially those that use floating- point math. At 1GHz, a single Larrabee core hits a theoretical 32 GFLOPS (32 billion floating-point operations per second). A 32-core Larrabee chip could exceed a teraflop--roughly the performance of Nvidia's latest GPU, the GTX 280, which has 240 (very simple) cores. But I don't expect to see that kind of performance from the first Larrabee chips. The power consumption of a 32-core design with all the extra overhead required by x86 processing would be very high. Even with Intel's advantages in process technology, such a large Larrabee chip would probably be commercially impractical. Smaller Larrabee designs may find some niche applications, however, acting as number- crunching coprocessors much as IBM's Cell chips do in some systems. And although a Larrabee chip could, in principle, be exposed to Windows or Mac OS X to act as a collection of additional CPU cores, that wouldn't work very well in the real world and Intel has no intention of using it that way. Instead, Larrabee will be used like a coprocessor. In that application, Larrabee's x86 compatibility isn't worth very much. The bottom line So...what's Larrabee good for, and why did Intel bother with it? I think maybe this was a science project that got out of hand. It came along just as AMD was buying ATI and so positioning itself as a leader in CPU-GPU integration. Intel had (and still has) no competitive GPU technology, but perhaps it saw Larrabee as a way to blur the line distinguishing CPUs from GPUs, allowing Intel to leverage its expertise in CPU design into the GPU space as well. Intel may have paid too much attention to some of its own researchers, who have been touting ray tracing as a potential alternative to traditional polygon-order ray tracing. I wrote about this in some depth back in June ("Ray tracing for PCs--a bad idea whose time has come"). But ray tracing merits just one paragraph and one figure in this paper, which establish merely that Larrabee is more efficient at ray tracing than an ordinary Xeon server processor. It falls well short of establishing that ray tracing is a viable option on Larrabee, however. Future members of the Larrabee family may be good GPUs, but from what I can see in this paper, the first Larrabee products will be too slow, too expensive, and too hot to be commercially competitive. It may be several more years beyond the expected 2009/2010 debut of the first Larrabee parts before we find out just how much of Intel's CPU know- how is transferable to the GPU market. I'll be at Siggraph again this year, and I'll have more to say after I've read this paper through a few more times and had a chance to speak with some of the folks I know at AMD, Nvidia, and other companies in the graphics market. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Intel details future 'Larrabee' graphics chip
NV55 pravi:
Intel has disclosed details on a chip that will compete directly with Nvidia and ATI and may take it into unchartered technological and market-segment waters. As I recall something very similar was said about the VIA Chrome9. For the record that chip can't even do 2D rendering decently. Larrabee will be a stand-alone chip, meaning it will be very different than the low-end--but widely used--integrated graphics that Intel now offers as part of the silicon that accompanies its processors. And Larrabee will be based on the universal Intel x86 architecture. Very different? The motherboard based GPUs are not really as dependent on other hardware as you make it sound, the only difference between it and a classic GPU is that it uses the chipset to do memory access just as much as any Intel CPU that you consider independent (a fact at the core of it's poor performance). As Intel sees it, Larrabee combines the best attributes of a central processing unit (CPU) with a graphics processor. "The thing we need is an architecture that combines the full programmability of the CPU with the kinds of parallelism and other special capabilities of graphics processors. And that architecture is Larrabee," Larry Seiler, a senior principal engineer in Intel's Visual Computing Group, said at a briefing on Larrabee in San Francisco last week. As Intel marketing sees it, you mean? "The best attributes of both" is such a pile of crap, GPUs are made the way they are for a very good reason: they work graphics faster that way. A text obviously written for a community not well versed in the inner workings of a GPU. A GPU is not simply your standard serial CPU with a few special functions slapped on, nor is parallelism any of the particularly notable features of it's architecture. A GPU, preprogrammed with data that could be interpreted as an instruction set, is capable of executing the selection of commands on a data block simultaneously -- not like a multicore CPU which can perform two or more operations only on unrelated bits of data, the GPU preforms all of the selected instructions on the data block it is working with at once, in one clock. This makes it an extremely powerful tool for performing the same specific set of instructions on a large amount of data, a task common in graphics manipulation. This also makes it inherently incompatible with the x86 architecture and can only be programmed in a similar manner with the use of a complex compiler, which interprets the programmer's code and organizes it into blocks of simultaneous operations to the best of it's ability; this is a typically inefficient process that surely cannot be done very well on the fly. If Intel is not using this advantage, and they're not, their magic new core will not have any of the advantages of the GPU. "It is not a GPU as many have mistakenly described it, but it can do most graphics functions," Jon Peddie of Jon Peddie Research, said in an article he posted Friday about Larrabee. Yes indeed. It turns out it's not a GPU -- It's a Pentium. The number of cores in each Larrabee chip may vary, according to market segment. Intel showed a slide with core counts ranging from 8 to 48, claiming performance scales almost linearly as more cores are added: that is, 16 cores will offer twice the performance of eight cores. Yes multicore computing is a buzzword these days. Seems like the old days of the 3.8 GHz Penitum or the 2 MB of L2 cache of the Pentium 2 all over again. So long as it's big numbers, everybody's buying it, regardless of whether it actually helps or hurts performance. "And the trend line indicates a flattening to decline in the business...However, Intel is no light-weight start up, and to enter the market today a company has to have a major infrastructure, deep IP (intellectual property), and marketing prowess--Intel has all that and more," Peddie said. And most of all Intel has crappy GPUs. There are other graphics chip providers on the market today, but their market share isn't much for a very simple reason: their technology sucks. As far as GPUs are concerned, Intel is one of them. Larrabee programming model: supports a variety of highly parallel applications, including those that use irregular data structures. This enables development of graphics APIs, rapid innovation of new graphics algorithms, and true general purpose computation on the graphics processor with established PC software development tools. Which in other words means, since their "GPU" is actually a simple Pentium CPU, they're pretending to beat nVidia's advanced compiler software with their much more trivial serial x86 compiler (see description of GPU arch above to understand what I mean). Frankly I can't believe they're willing to market even their sheer laziness as a feature. But hey, it's Intel. Software-based scheduling: Larrabee features task scheduling which is performed entirely with software, rather than in fixed function logic. Therefore rendering pipelines and other complex software systems can adjust their resource scheduling based each workload's unique computing demand. Oh yes, the wonders of advanced technology: SOFTWARE ACCELERATION. According to them, their emulated hardware will outperform the real hardware in use by nVidia and ATI. Silly how *they* never figured to do something like that, until Intel came up with it, don't you think? "A key characteristic of this vector processor is a property we call being vector complete...You can run 16 pixels in parallel, 16 vertices in parallel, or 16 more general program indications in parallel," Oh my! 16 pixels! Remember guys, this is 16 pixels at once trough *one* operation that may not be such where one pixel is affected by a neighbouring pixel or you break the pipeline. In x86. Any people who speak x86 Assembly around here probably know just how crappy this is. My apologies but this crap is too much fun not to maliciously comment on. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIokKrB6mNZXe93qgRAoSqAKDF8X3AqJHmfhY/SoMEEYIDw2LtHwCfW7Nh mWdFwvfgn1WYhR6wMRdxLw0= =RvPB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Intel details future 'Larrabee' graphics chip
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Intel details future 'Larrabee' graphics chip
Jure Sah wrote:
NV55 pravi: "It is not a GPU as many have mistakenly described it, but it can do most graphics functions," Jon Peddie of Jon Peddie Research, said in an article he posted Friday about Larrabee. Yes indeed. It turns out it's not a GPU -- It's a Pentium. It's starting to look like Larrabee is going to be a transitional technology, a throwaway quickly released-and-forgotten technology until their real technology comes out. It may have even been a marketing ploy to take attention away from AMD and to a lesser extent Nvidia. For all of this hype about Larrabee, they're saying that it won't even be a part of the forthcoming Nehelam integrated GPU. The Nehelam integrated GPU will be based on Intel's existing crappy GPUs. (The Nehelam integrated GPU will have a different codename, which I can't remember right now, but it's based on Nehelam anyways.) "And the trend line indicates a flattening to decline in the business...However, Intel is no light-weight start up, and to enter the market today a company has to have a major infrastructure, deep IP (intellectual property), and marketing prowess--Intel has all that and more," Peddie said. And most of all Intel has crappy GPUs. There are other graphics chip providers on the market today, but their market share isn't much for a very simple reason: their technology sucks. As far as GPUs are concerned, Intel is one of them. Actually the reason other GPU makers' marketshare isn't as much as Intel's is because Intel includes their GPUs with every chipset they sell on a motherboard. The vast majority of the Intel processors are paired with Intel chipsets, so the GPUs get high marketshare just hitching along for the ride. Which in other words means, since their "GPU" is actually a simple Pentium CPU, they're pretending to beat nVidia's advanced compiler software with their much more trivial serial x86 compiler (see description of GPU arch above to understand what I mean). There will be real x86/GPU instruction set integration with AMD, when they get their Fusion processor running. SSE5 is being designed for GPU-based acceleration. My apologies but this crap is too much fun not to maliciously comment on. It's always fun to poke holes in marketing. Yousuf Khan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Intel details future 'Larrabee' graphics chip
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:30:55 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote: Jure Sah wrote: NV55 pravi: "It is not a GPU as many have mistakenly described it, but it can do most graphics functions," Jon Peddie of Jon Peddie Research, said in an article he posted Friday about Larrabee. Yes indeed. It turns out it's not a GPU -- It's a Pentium. It's starting to look like Larrabee is going to be a transitional technology, a throwaway quickly released-and-forgotten technology until their real technology comes out. It may have even been a marketing ploy to take attention away from AMD and to a lesser extent Nvidia. For all of this hype about Larrabee, they're saying that it won't even be a part of the forthcoming Nehelam integrated GPU. The Nehelam integrated GPU will be based on Intel's existing crappy GPUs. (The Nehelam integrated GPU will have a different codename, which I can't remember right now, but it's based on Nehelam anyways.) I think it's just a timing issue. Given the timing of the various products putting the Nehelam and existing GPU technology together gets the product to market faster. It's a smart move given that the product is probably aimed at the business market which has obviously been satisfied with the previous generations of the Intel GPU since they were buying laptops with them installed. I'm sure Intel is looking at future combinations with Larabee (which should be due in about two years if I remember their tick tock time line correctly.) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Intel details future 'Larrabee' graphics chip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 Yousuf Khan pravi: Which in other words means, since their "GPU" is actually a simple Pentium CPU, they're pretending to beat nVidia's advanced compiler software with their much more trivial serial x86 compiler (see description of GPU arch above to understand what I mean). There will be real x86/GPU instruction set integration with AMD, when they get their Fusion processor running. SSE5 is being designed for GPU-based acceleration. Sure, but there is a big difference between running all GPU functions software emulated in an x86 Pentium chip and implementing a selected few CPU functions with the GPU with an x86 frontend. Implementing SSE-like instructions on a GPU chip (or anywhere outside a CPU) makes sense, it also goes along with for example AMD's 3DNow! approach, where new, faster functions are provided to existing software by giving them an x87 frontend. It's not like x86 is an universally superior architecture, it's good for some things and bad for others, you have to know when to use it... but you could also say Intel's approach of creating completely new instruction sets every now and then is good for marketing and bad for software. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIrxzOB6mNZXe93qgRAo1GAJsFWzwOYvgrou6M2InSDx tsccPiogCgo8mL ihlFtXDPUS4l9UMmUS7wDgM= =x++D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel details future 'Larrabee' graphics chip | NV55 | Intel | 9 | August 22nd 08 09:08 PM |
Intel details future 'Larrabee' graphics chip | NV55 | AMD x86-64 Processors | 9 | August 22nd 08 09:08 PM |
Intel details future 'Larrabee' graphics chip | NV55 | Nvidia Videocards | 9 | August 22nd 08 09:08 PM |
Intel details future -Larrabee- graphics chip | NV55 | General | 7 | August 7th 08 05:12 PM |
Intel Larrabee [speculation] to offer 16x the performance of GeForce8800 ? - Intel, Nvidia partnership to give Larrabee hardware rasterizingcapability? Larrabee could be useful for games | NV55 | Intel | 0 | December 19th 07 02:43 AM |