Huang talks Larrabee, x86 compatibility - bit-tech.net Forums

Tim S · 26th Aug 2008, 02:18

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/08...ompatibility/1

NVISION 2008: Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang shared his feelings on exactly what x86 compatibility means to him.

PQuiff · 26th Aug 2008, 12:54

Meh i dont care.

I just want faster computers that dont crash every 10 minutes.

Saivert · 27th Aug 2008, 13:24

I think Intel wants to move towards single processor systems. I.e one CPU to rule them all. Therefore x86 cores is important because that's what Intel has used in the past and will continue to use. It's THEIR architecture after all.
If they succeed at getting x86 cores to render graphics at high speeds, AMD and NVIDIA will have to seriously start looking around for something new. This is a bit game of chicken. They both think the other camp has the losing ground and continues to talk down on each other's offering.

PS3 was going to use the Cell processor for graphics rendering, but the engineers didn't pull it off and had to resort to using a discrete graphics chip (from NVIDIA). this proves that there are still some time before you can get away with doing anything on one processor.

Don't underestimate Intel even though you don't believe in Larrabee.

Hope I have cleared the reasons why both NVIDIA and Intel think they are right for their own reasons in this matter.

wuyanxu · 27th Aug 2008, 13:59

the importance of x86 in GPU is all Intel's marketing.

RISC architecture is far better and elegant than x86 (CISC). look at the failed attempt at Intel Atom power consumption vs ARM's power consumption.

many people say ATI's 4870 is a great architecture and gtx280 is a brute force approach. and this is just like ARM/PowerPC vs Intel, Intel gives you better performance whil ARM/PowerPC architecture is more effecient and elegant. (which is why most mainframes are still using PowerPC CPUs, for effeciency)

as long as the driver allows CPU and GPU to work together, there's no need for x86 instruction sets. (the "tools" in Huang's words)
as long as there's a capible shader compiler, there's no difference between x86 instruction sets and other (ATI/nVIdia) approach

26th Aug 2008, 02:18	#1
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	Huang talks Larrabee, x86 compatibility http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/08...ompatibility/1 NVISION 2008: Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang shared his feelings on exactly what x86 compatibility means to him. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

27th Aug 2008, 13:24	#3
Saivert Multimodder Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Norway Posts: 203	I think Intel wants to move towards single processor systems. I.e one CPU to rule them all. Therefore x86 cores is important because that's what Intel has used in the past and will continue to use. It's THEIR architecture after all. If they succeed at getting x86 cores to render graphics at high speeds, AMD and NVIDIA will have to seriously start looking around for something new. This is a bit game of chicken. They both think the other camp has the losing ground and continues to talk down on each other's offering. PS3 was going to use the Cell processor for graphics rendering, but the engineers didn't pull it off and had to resort to using a discrete graphics chip (from NVIDIA). this proves that there are still some time before you can get away with doing anything on one processor. Don't underestimate Intel even though you don't believe in Larrabee. Hope I have cleared the reasons why both NVIDIA and Intel think they are right for their own reasons in this matter. __________________ - I'm the troll who bumps page 2 topics -

27th Aug 2008, 13:59	#4
wuyanxu quad fuelled, GTX200 powered Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in a room near Soton Uni. UK Posts: 3,940	the importance of x86 in GPU is all Intel's marketing. RISC architecture is far better and elegant than x86 (CISC). look at the failed attempt at Intel Atom power consumption vs ARM's power consumption. many people say ATI's 4870 is a great architecture and gtx280 is a brute force approach. and this is just like ARM/PowerPC vs Intel, Intel gives you better performance whil ARM/PowerPC architecture is more effecient and elegant. (which is why most mainframes are still using PowerPC CPUs, for effeciency) as long as the driver allows CPU and GPU to work together, there's no need for x86 instruction sets. (the "tools" in Huang's words) as long as there's a capible shader compiler, there's no difference between x86 instruction sets and other (ATI/nVIdia) approach __________________ Death to consolification !!!Core i7 860 @ 4Ghz Cooled by Corsair H50 // Asus P7P55D Deluxe // 8GB of Corsair Dominators @ 1528Mhz 8-8-8-24 // BFG gtx260+ OC2 MaxCore 216SP 896MB // Samsung 64GB SSD // WD Raptor 74GB + Black 1TB + Green 1TB // Corsair Hx620w // Antec p182 // Samsung 24" T240

26th Aug 2008, 12:54	#2
PQuiff Supermodder Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 345	Meh i dont care. I just want faster computers that dont crash every 10 minutes.