We just got off the phone with Nick Knupffer of Intel, who confirmed something that has long been speculated upon: the fate of Larrabee. As of today, the first Larrabee chip’s retail release has been canceled. This means that Intel will not be releasing a Larrabee video card or a Larrabee HPC/GPGPU compute part.

The Larrabee project itself has not been canceled however, and Intel is still hard at work developing their first entirely in-house discrete GPU. The first Larrabee chip (which for lack of an official name, we’re going to be calling Larrabee Prime) will be used for the R&D of future Larrabee chips in the form of development kits for internal and external use.

The big question of course is “why?” Officially, the reason why Larrabee Prime was scrubbed was that both the hardware and the software were behind schedule. Intel has left the finer details up to speculation in true Intel fashion, but it has been widely rumored in the last few months that Larrabee Prime has not been performing as well as Intel had been expecting it to, which is consistent with the chip being behind schedule.

Bear in mind that Larrabee Prime’s launch was originally scheduled to be in the 2009-2010 timeframe, so Intel has already missed the first year of their launch window. Even with TSMC’s 40nm problems, Intel would have been launching after NVIDIA’s Fermi and AMD’s Cypress, if not after Cypress’ 2010 successor too. If the chip was underperforming, then the time element would only make things worse for Intel, as they would be setting up Larrabee Prime against successively more powerful products from NVIDIA and AMD.

The software side leaves us a bit more curious, as Intel normally has a strong track record here. Their x86 compiler technology is second to none, and as Larrabee Prime is x86 based, this would have left them in a good starting position for software development. What we’re left wondering is whether the software setback was for overall HPC/GPGPU use, or if it was for graphics. Certainly the harder part of Larrabee Prime’s software development would be the need to write graphics drivers from scratch that were capable of harnessing the chip as a video card, taking in to consideration the need to support older APIs such as DX9 that make implicit assumptions about the layout of the hardware. Could it be that Intel couldn’t get Larrabee Prime working as a video card? That’s going to be a big question that’s going to hang over Intel’s heads right up to the day that they finally launch a Larrabee video card.

Ultimately when we took our first look at Larrabee Prime’s architecture, there were 3 things that we believed could go wrong: manufacturing/yield problems, performance problems, and driver problems. Based on what Intel has said, we can’t write off any of those scenarios. Larrabee Prime is certainly suffering from something that can be classified as driver problems, and it may very well be suffering from both manufacturing and performance problems too.

To Intel’s credit, even if Larrabee Prime will never see the light of day as a retail product, it has been turning in some impressive numbers at trade shows. At SC09 last month, Intel demonstrated Larrabee Prime running the SGEMM HPC benchmark at 1 TeraFLOP, a notable accomplishment as the actual performance of any GPU is usually a fraction of its theoretical performance. 1TF is close to the theoretical performance of NVIDIA’s GT200 and AMD’s RV770 chips, so Larrabee was no slouch. But then again its competition would not be GT220 and RV770, it’s Fermi and Cypress.

Next, this brings us to the future of Larrabee. Larrabee Prime may be canceled, but the Larrabee project is not. As Intel puts it, Larrabee is a “complex multi-year project” and development will be continuing. Intel still wants a piece of the HPC/GPGPU pie (least NVIDIA and AMD get it all to themselves) and they still want in to the video card space given the collision between those markets. For Intel, their plans have just been delayed.

The Larrabee architecture lives on

For the immediate future, as we mentioned earlier Larrabee Prime is still going to be used by Intel for R&D purposes, as a software development platform. This is a very good use of the hardware (however troubled it may be) as it allows Intel to bootstrap the software side of Larrabee so that developers can get started programming for real hardware while Intel works on the next iteration of Larrabee. Much like how NVIDIA and AMD sample their video cards months ahead of time to game developers, we expect that Larrabee Prime SDKs would be limited to Intel’s closest software partners, so don’t expect to see much if anything leak about Larrabee Prime once chips start leaving Intel’s hands, or to see extensive software development initially. Widespread Larrabee software development will still not start until Intel ships the next iteration of Larrabee, if this is the case.

We should know more about the Larrabee situation next year, as Intel is already planning on an announcement at some point in 2010. Our best guess is that Intel will announce the next Larrabee chip at that time, with a product release in 2011 or 2012. Much of this will depend on what the hardware problem was and what process node Intel wants to use. If Intel just needs the ability to pack more cores on to a Larrabee chip then 2011 is a reasonable target, otherwise if there’s a more fundamental issue then 2012 is more likely. This lines up with the process nodes for those years: if they go for 2011 they hit the 2nd year of their 32nm process, otherwise if they launched in 2012 they would be able to launch it as one of the first products on the 22nm process.

For that matter, Since the Larrabee project was not killed, it’s a safe assumption that any future Larrabee chips are going to be based on the same architectural design. The vibe from Intel is that the problem is Larrabee Prime and not the Larrabee architecture itself. The idea of an x86 many-cores GPU is still alive and well.

On-Chip GMA-based GPUs: Still On Schedule For 2010

Finally, there’s the matter of Intel’s competition. For AMD and NVIDIA, this is just about the best possible announcement they could hope for. On the video card front it means they won’t be facing any new competitors through 2010 and most of 2011. That doesn’t mean that Intel isn’t going to be a challenge for them – Intel is still launching Carkdale and Arrandale with on-chip GPUs next year – but they won’t be facing competition at the high-end too. For NVIDIA in particular, this means that Fermi has a clear shot at the HPC/GPGPU space without competition from Intel, which is exactly the kind of break NVIDIA needed since Fermi is running late.



View All Comments

  • kmmatney - Saturday, December 5, 2009 - link

    Thanks for that. The Voodoo 5 6000 guys are laughing too. Reply
  • piesquared - Saturday, December 5, 2009 - link

    The concept seems so simple and looks much more efficient. A top of the line CPU on one side, a top of the line GPU on the other and a Fusion APU in the middle. They just created a new market and have the industry backing it. Should prove to work out pretty well for their future... Reply
  • Spike Africa - Saturday, December 5, 2009 - link

    "The software side leaves us a bit more curious, as Intel normally has a strong track record here"

    On the contrary, Intel historically has been terrible at software. They killed their UNIX expertise just as Linux started, Itanium was proof they don't understand software at any level and they wrongly opposed a move to 64-bit software on x86, losing billions in share to AMD. No surprise they are last to the parallel software party.

    The people now in charge at Intel got on the launching pad to the executive suite in the early 90's. That was a time when the chip guys at Intel were doing all they could to "control" the software guys. The chip guys didn't understand software and were threatened by it. They wanted to leave all the software side to Microsoft while Intel focused on line-width and manufacturing. The chip guys won and people like Paul Otellini (nice guy, but clueless about software) took the helm. That's why software is a side show at Intel, why they learned all the wrong lessons from Itanium and why over ten years later when for the first time just turning the crank on x86 won't cut it and they really need a new software paradigm for Larrabee they don't know to do it.

    NVIDIA does. They understand the central role software plays in GPGPU. Look at recent events like GTC and the big news is not so much Fermi as it is the presence of numerous software teams who have been working with NVIDIA GPGPU for three years. Fermi in key part is based on the lessons of those software experiences, expertly done by NVIDIA based on experience, not guesswork.

    Intel has also been weak at working with paradigm-breakers because they can't get out of this "I'm Intel and you're dirt" mentality they have. Give them advice and they feel threatened. NVIDIA doesn't have that problem. Some of the most advanced work shown at GTC came out of companies nobody every heard of before, to NVIDIA's benefit.

  • Orangutan2 - Sunday, December 6, 2009 - link

    For me a lot of the things you say ring true. I would love to see nVida come out with a breakthrough Fermi.

    I'll buy Fermi coz I'll use it with Badaboom but I need it to be fast for games or my friends will take the piss.

    Intel has really held things back over the (last 20) years so competition all the way.

    Companies only work as hard as they have to.
  • WaltC - Saturday, December 5, 2009 - link

    "To Intel’s credit, even if Larrabee Prime will never see the light of day as a retail product, it has been turning in some impressive numbers at trade shows."

    I think this was probably the main reason Intel decided to go ahead and cancel the Larrabee hardware. The tFlop benchmark numbers and the "real-time ray tracing" demos were creating massively unreasonable expectations in the public mind, expectations that Larrabee would not be able to fulfill.

    IMO, "Larrabee" has always been heavy on the PR side and very light on the hardware/software side. Intel oversold the concept to the degree that they were not able to actually make a product that would live up to the promises made and the capabilities implied. I think Intel wrung every last bit of PR promotion out of the Larrabee concept before it officially "killed" it. Much better that Intel cancel Larrabee now than go ahead and try to market it and watch it fail catastrophically.
  • HighTech4US - Saturday, December 5, 2009 - link

    Why are you giving credit to intel for a hidden hardware demo(s) where it was even stated that they were overclocking the hardware.

    Do you not remember the Pentium 4 that was shown clocked at 4 ghz at an intel IDF. It NEVER was released.

    Until a part is available for independent review treat all intel trade show numbers with great skepticism.
  • WaltC - Saturday, December 5, 2009 - link

    Agreed...but, that's exactly what I said in the first place...;) The quote in my original post is from the AnandTech article. Reply
  • Ryun - Saturday, December 5, 2009 - link

    This was a smart move for Intel, and one that I did not expect. I figured they were going to release it come hell or high water like when Intel pushed Netburst. Reply
  • Ryun - Saturday, December 5, 2009 - link

    *edit* Whoops meant Itanium (not sure how I messed that one up) Reply
  • bupkus - Saturday, December 5, 2009 - link

    as nobody else has thrown this in, I will.

    Will Intel try to buy nVidia as AMD did ATI?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now