Talk:Larrabee (microarchitecture)

message: Large parts of this article are now obsolete, and it may now be appropriate to replace "GPU" in the article title with something else. Modeless (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Intel cancelled the release of the first version of Larrabee hardware as a GPU. They didn't cancel the whole project or the GPUness; that's a common but incorrect misreading of their press statements. If you read the Intel statements directly (not other people's summaries) you can see they say something like "cancelling the first generation Larrabee graphics", and they mean "cancelling the first generation of Larrabee graphics", not "cancelling Larrabee graphics (which happens to be at the first generation)". It's just another delay. 72.86.22.222 (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Larrabee consumer graphics card canceled

message: This article needs a screenshot of the demo from GDC - plus any other info released at the conference.
Larrabee demo video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxr_4sZ7w7k
:I don't think that video is related to Larrabee, unfortunately.  Project Offset is not Larrabee-exclusive, and AFAIK no actual Larrabee cards exist yet.  That demo is likely running on Radeon or GeForce cards.  ProjectOffset.com is the source of the video and it makes no mention of Larrabee. 
:Hopefully various tech news sites will soon post their summaries of the GDC Larrabee presentations.  So far there hasn't been much new information released; the biggest new news was the release of a C++ implementation of the Larrabee new instructions, which is now linked from the "External Links" section of the article.  Modeless (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aha, well thats a bit of a shame(?). Anyway, the new instructions are quite exciting. Almost warents a new article section that compares current IA SSE with the new set. 16 single precision floats in one register? I also love the mask with each instruction that allows you to cancel operations on certain slots. And pow() on chip - even x87 didn't have that!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.165.51 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GDC 2009

message: Do these two sentences really warrant an entire section? Of course the criticism is valid, but it looks like somebody rushed to "hate". It makes the rest of the article feel unfinished and hasty, when actually the article is rather complete and of good quality. Perhaps it should be moved to another section? 84.9.165.14 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No objection? Moved. 84.9.165.14 (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Ramu50, your concern about marketing speak in calling x86 "popular" is valid; I've changed it to say "common" instead.  I have also reintroduced the information about the Pentagon's involvement in Larrabee's design.
The SIGGRAPH paper clearly states that Larrabee has a coherent cache across all cores:  (Italics added for emphasis)  Page 1: "The cores each access their own subset of a coherent L2 cache".  Page 3:  "These cache control instructions also allow the L2 cache to be used similarly to a scratchpad memory, while remaining fully coherent."  Page 11:  "In contrast, all memory on Larrabee is shared by all processor cores. For Larrabee programmers, local data structure sharing is transparently supported by the coherent cached memory hierarchy regardless of the thread’s processor."  
The text claiming that Larrabee has a crossbar architecture is not supported by sources.  Larrabee uses a ring bus, as described in the SIGGRAPH paper.
Modeless (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 10 August edits

message: Does anyone else have an issue with the title of this page, "Larrabee (GPU)"?  I don't know if it is known for certain if Larrabee is meant to stand alone as the only processor in a PC, like what everyone had before 1997, or function like a modern video card with a dedicated CPU.  But either way I think calling this a GPU is a stretch.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.122.138 (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Intel has announced that Larrabee will definitely be sold as a video card.  It will be a PCI Express 2.0 card with its own RAM, marketed and sold for the express purpose of accelerating DirectX/OpenGL inside a PC with a separate CPU, just like other GPUs.  Not to mention that Larrabee does include some fixed-function GPU hardware (the texture sampling units).  Eventually if Intel announces other Larrabee-based products, like a standalone chip that slots into Intel motherboards with QuickPath, we might want to revisit the title of this article.  But right now there is no indication that Intel is going to sell Larrabee as anything but a GPU. Modeless (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: ===Release date===
Any speculation about the estimated release date ? --Xav
:Added. Modeless 20:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, not that I know of, but it makes sense.  Intel has in the past been friendly to open-source driver efforts for their hardware, and the trend nowadays is to be more open to support GPGPU (as seen by NVIDIA's CUDA, ATI's CTM and more recently their release of complete documentation without NDAs), and since Intel would like Larrabee to dominate this market they will have to be open.  I would be surprised if Intel didn't encourage open-source drivers for Larrabee, at least for the GPGPU side of things. Modeless 20:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation

message: Any speculation about the estimated release date ? --Xav
:Added. Modeless 20:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Release date

message: Likewise, any references to open source drivers? --Daniel11 06:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, not that I know of, but it makes sense.  Intel has in the past been friendly to open-source driver efforts for their hardware, and the trend nowadays is to be more open to support GPGPU (as seen by NVIDIA's CUDA, ATI's CTM and more recently their release of complete documentation without NDAs), and since Intel would like Larrabee to dominate this market they will have to be open.  I would be surprised if Intel didn't encourage open-source drivers for Larrabee, at least for the GPGPU side of things. Modeless 20:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Open drivers

message: Larrabee was the name of the slow-witted assistant to the Chief of CONTROL on the TV series Get Smart. ;) He's the guy who when told to take away a bugged aerosol can "and step on it" (meaning do it quickly), took the order literally. After an offscreen explosion, Larrabee came back in with his clothes shredded and said "Chief, I don't think you're supposed to step on those.".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 10:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfortunate code name

message: http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/UserFiles/en-us/File/larrabee_manycore.pdf
I'll leave it to someone else with more time on their hands and better understanding of Wikipedia rules and regulations to beautify this article.
--Tatejl (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: URL for the paper

message: Requested permission from authors for image use. dila (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Permission granted for the use of several (, , , ) images from the recent SIGGRAPH conference. dila (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide the permission text to WP:OTRS please. --soum talk 03:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have sent the permission via email to [permissions-en@wikimedia.org]. dila (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Jeez Dila, you basically ruined the entire article. Did you even read, let alone understand, anything that you inserted? 99.236.145.40 (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? You mean those images that I took time to obtain ruin the article? And my opening description that remains after 27 edits? What exactly are you referring to? Wait, don't bother. dila (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: August Changes

message: Since the article compares the chip to GPUs from Nvidia, but is more of a multicore, high performance general purpose computer with a ring based connectivity, whouldn't at least a reference to the Cell (Cell Broadband Engine) be suitable?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.209.166.130 (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was one - see here. It was probably removed by 99.236.145.40, the fool above. dila (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be respectful of other editors. Comment as much as you want on their edits, but don't make it personal. --soum talk 09:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I've started a comparison in the comparison section.  Modeless (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read on only if you want the unsolicited advice from an experienced editor :). Wikipedia articles are to describe about the subject of the article, not about its competitors. So its better not to delve deep into the competition. Mention it in a one liner like "competes with GPUs like X, Y as well as with high performance architectures like Z". Use proper categories and navboxes to enable easy navigation between articles about competing products. Try to avoid comparison as much as possible, that becomes extremely unwieildly in the long run. Only include as much comparatory info as is necessary to understand the concepts. Like fully programmable pipeline in Larrabbee vs partial ones in regular GPUs or crossbar vs ring bus architecture. Do not put comparison about performance or other stuff in this article. Rather, if that information needs to be provided, create a separate "Comparison of Larrabee and..." articles (if necessary, a series of articles, even). A proper structure is the first thing in maintainability of articles. --soum talk 09:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison to Cell?

message: This article looks like an advertisment to me. Especially with the inclusion of that programmability graph with all arrows pointing towards it. Also there is no mention of any competing products. NPOV anyone? --DustWolf (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The competing products are mentioned in the first line. Would you like to see expansion of that? E_dog95'   Hi ' 01:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Almost the whole article is a comparison of Larrabee to current products.  I would love nothing more than to compare Larrabee with the future products it will be competing with in late 2009.  However, basically nothing is known about the next GPUs from NVIDIA and ATI.  They keep all information about future products as secret as possible until right before release (days usually).  Intel is being remarkably open for the GPU market.  So there really isn't much to compare Larrabee to right now.  I could add some speculation but I suppose that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article (the Beyond3D forum is probably the best place).  As for the PowerPoint slide, well, it is from an Intel marketing presentation, so I suppose it should look like an advertisement.  Feel free to replace it. Modeless (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the first chip image is good, but I guess the others are a bit "Pro-Intel". Also they are "public domain" which makes them really hassle free. dila (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I would like to propose that the article is extended with an "architecture" section where the known architectual features are described. It will then be natural to go into the comparisons with GPUs from Nvidia, AMD/ATI as well as Cell/CBE chips from TSI.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.209.166.130 (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

text: This article reads like an intel press release.  It states only the benefits of the product and none of its drawbacks.  The comparisons made all benefit intel.  --67.241.177.245 (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add some drawbacks in there, dude; just be sure to cite them.  The problem is that all the unreleased chips that are going to be comparable to Larrabee are super extra top secret.  Intel's publishing SIGGRAPH papers while ATI and NVIDIA are keeping their mouths shut.  When ATI and NVIDIA's next-gen chips are revealed I am sure they will compare much more favorably to Larrabee.  Furthermore, Larrabee's advantages are all in its flexible architecture; its drawbacks are likely to be in performance which, again, is secret right now. Modeless (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert 

message: I just deleted the sections on simt and threading. The papers on Larrabee clearly describe a threading model almost identical to that used in current gpu's (especially Nvidia's), the only real difference is in terminology. In Larrabee each core has 4 'threads' but each thread manages 2-10 'fibers' (equivalent to a 'warp' in Nvidia's GPU's) and each fiber contains between 16 and 64 'strands' (equal to what nvidia calls a 'thread') each strand execute in a separate simd execution lane. This is exactly like Nvidia architecture where each warp consists of 32 "threads" each of which executes in a simd execution lane. And no, there is nothing 'effectively scalar' about either architecture. (Damn forgot to sign in).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.186.7 (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Threading

message: According to  and , Intel canceled the hardware version of Larrabee and the name would only exist as a software platform.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.102.18 (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "software platform" differs from that of "software development platform". A software development platform is still a piece of hardware.192.55.54.36 (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancellation 

message: Should this really be called a GPU? 192.198.151.37 (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GPU 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Support (partial). Move → Larrabee (microarchitecture). That's how Intel call it. Skarebo (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: This article reminds me of all of that Merced hype and how it was supposed to cure cancer, end world hunger, and be so superior to every other CPU architecture that everybody would switch to it before it even came out. This article has pro-Intel marketing speak like how using x86 cores for simple parallel arithmetic is superior to using dedicated GPU cores (only superior for vendor lock-in) and just like Merced hype parts are written as if the Larrabee was already out instead of with speculations and possibilities.
:Example: "This makes Larrabee more flexible than current GPUs, allowing more differentiation in appearance between games or other 3D applications."
So x86 architecture, cache coherency, and "very little specialized graphics hardware" are supposed to allow "more differentiation in appearance between games or other 3D applications"? That doesn't even make sense! It's like when Intel said that "the Internet was developed on x86," a massive lie! When the Internet was developed, x86 wasn't even around. It's like saying "the Interstate was developed for SMART cars!"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.54.60.34 (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it does make sense because those combined attributes enable the use of a software renderer, as opposed to relying on fixed function hardware. I think the problem here might be that your understanding of graphics is lacking, not the presence of any Intel "hype" or bias in the article. 83.226.206.82 (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full of Intel hype