HyperX Predator DDR4 RGB 32GB 2933 MHz review
Nvidia Turing GeForce 2080 (Ti) architecture review
Ballistix Sport AT Gaming DDR4 RGB 32GB 3000 MHz review
Seagate Barracuda Pro 14TB HDD review
ASUS ROG STRIX B450-I Gaming review
Battlefield V Open Beta: PC performance benchmarks
MSI MEG X399 Creation review
be quiet! Silent Base 601 review
Deepcool Gamerstorm Castle 240 RGB AIO review
Strange Brigade: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Intel Halts Xeon Phi accelerator Knights Hill Development
Intel adjusted its roadmap to focus on high-performance exascale computing. Part of this .plan is scrapping the previously announced Knights Hill based Xeon Phi accelerators. The product line has been removed from the latest roadmap.
Intel will replace Xeon Phi with a new platform and architecture reports tweakers.net today, Intel makes note of this fact (albeit a little hidden) in this article. The exact reasoning behind the cancellation of Xeon Phi is vague, as well as specs on the new architecture.
Intel first announced Knights Hill back in 2014, it would be based on 10nm and would support the new generation Omni-Path-interconnects. Xeon Phi, if you can remember it, was a relative if the Larrabee GPU project and thus effectively, this would be the end of Intel's Larrabee GPU project.
Intel Halts Sales Broadwell-E Intel Core i7 6800K, 6850K, 6900K & 6950X go EOL - 11/09/2017 01:42 PM
In a product notification, Intel let know it will be ending their shipments of Broadwell-E processors, these would include the Intel Core i7 6800K, 6850K, 6900K and the 10-core 6950X...
Intel halts cheap non-K overclocking by closing Skylake BIOS loophole - 02/09/2016 10:33 AM
Yesterday we already reported that ASRock silently removed they Sky OC feature from their BIOSes, as it turns out the rest will follow. The core BIOS files are provided by Intel, and they have confirm...
Intel has record sales of Core i7 and K-model processors in declining CPU market - 01/15/2016 06:27 PM
In the last quarter of 2015 Intel has seen its revenue for client processors drop by 8% due to a declining market, however high-end PCs seem to make a comeback or are more popular then ever as they in...
Intel has a Skylake Shortage - 08/17/2015 08:56 AM
Intel has confirmed that is has a Skylake processor shortage, mainly for manufacturers. The company shared this information after the CEO of ASUS mentioned that Asus is not receiving enough processors...
Intel Haswell-E has SATA RST-driver issue - 12/12/2014 10:51 AM
The Intel X99 chipset for Haswell-E processors seems to be having an issue. The problem surfaced after Intel pulled their RSTe drivers for its platform....
SweenJM
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 2017-09-10
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 2017-09-10
#5492345 Posted on: 11/15/2017 10:58 AM
That's pretty interesting. it was a pretty big project for a good while. i have always wondered why intel has never gotten serious about graphics.
That's pretty interesting. it was a pretty big project for a good while. i have always wondered why intel has never gotten serious about graphics.
rl66
Senior Member
Posts: 1719
Joined: 2007-05-31
Senior Member
Posts: 1719
Joined: 2007-05-31
#5492378 Posted on: 11/15/2017 01:06 PM
Maybe because the XEON Phi is even more "niche" product than NVidia (1st place) and AMD (2nd place)... it is very good for computation but product from green and red are realy much more easy, much more versatile... arm/x86/x64/custom config... the experience they have is a real advange over intel wich is pretty young in this exercice.
About Intel in graphic... at each release of their IGP it is better, now you can no more say "their IGP are so weak that you can do nothing with them"... at one point i guess they will do some great stuff.
That's pretty interesting. it was a pretty big project for a good while. i have always wondered why intel has never gotten serious about graphics.
Maybe because the XEON Phi is even more "niche" product than NVidia (1st place) and AMD (2nd place)... it is very good for computation but product from green and red are realy much more easy, much more versatile... arm/x86/x64/custom config... the experience they have is a real advange over intel wich is pretty young in this exercice.
About Intel in graphic... at each release of their IGP it is better, now you can no more say "their IGP are so weak that you can do nothing with them"... at one point i guess they will do some great stuff.
-Tj-
Senior Member
Posts: 15274
Joined: 2012-05-18
Senior Member
Posts: 15274
Joined: 2012-05-18
#5492387 Posted on: 11/15/2017 01:30 PM
Was about to say its something with Raja for sure, they don't need that anymore..
I think Raja will.make some wonders in intel gpu world. Can't wait!
Raja has spoken!!!
Was about to say its something with Raja for sure, they don't need that anymore..
I think Raja will.make some wonders in intel gpu world. Can't wait!
Texter
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 2008-11-03
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 2008-11-03
#5492391 Posted on: 11/15/2017 01:49 PM
Oh they were serious all right nearly a decade ago...what did they spend on LRB? $5 Billion? Apparently hooking up a bunch of Pentiums on a single die wasn't competitive enough for graphics, even though they were so boastful of their accomplishments at first...Xeon Phi was the Larrabee salvage job.
i have always wondered why intel has never gotten serious about graphics.
Oh they were serious all right nearly a decade ago...what did they spend on LRB? $5 Billion? Apparently hooking up a bunch of Pentiums on a single die wasn't competitive enough for graphics, even though they were so boastful of their accomplishments at first...Xeon Phi was the Larrabee salvage job.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3155
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 3155
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5492435 Posted on: 11/15/2017 04:25 PM
I can't say I'm surprised by this. Considering Intel's approach against Epyc (or just Epyc in of itself) Knights Hill just doesn't make sense. And yes, I'm aware they're for servers - in the server market, these products are too niche.
To my understanding, this wasn't meant to be a GPU, but rather a large cluster of x86 Atom CPUs as an AIB.
But yes, it does beg the question why Intel didn't just use their existing GPU architecture for a discrete card and improve upon it. Despite what people think, it is actually decent, but we just happen to get really underwhelming and crippled variants. I wouldn't run out and buy an Intel GPU for gaming, but I'd be open to one for workstations, OpenCL, and transcoding.
I can't say I'm surprised by this. Considering Intel's approach against Epyc (or just Epyc in of itself) Knights Hill just doesn't make sense. And yes, I'm aware they're for servers - in the server market, these products are too niche.
That's pretty interesting. it was a pretty big project for a good while. i have always wondered why intel has never gotten serious about graphics.
To my understanding, this wasn't meant to be a GPU, but rather a large cluster of x86 Atom CPUs as an AIB.
But yes, it does beg the question why Intel didn't just use their existing GPU architecture for a discrete card and improve upon it. Despite what people think, it is actually decent, but we just happen to get really underwhelming and crippled variants. I wouldn't run out and buy an Intel GPU for gaming, but I'd be open to one for workstations, OpenCL, and transcoding.
rl66
Senior Member
Posts: 1719
Joined: 2007-05-31
Senior Member
Posts: 1719
Joined: 2007-05-31
#5492480 Posted on: 11/15/2017 06:47 PM
To my understanding, this wasn't meant to be a GPU, but rather a large cluster of x86 Atom CPUs as an AIB.
it is... but made for computing
To my understanding, this wasn't meant to be a GPU, but rather a large cluster of x86 Atom CPUs as an AIB.
it is... but made for computing
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 3155
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 3155
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5492503 Posted on: 11/15/2017 07:29 PM
That's what Nvidia's Tesla or AMD's FirePro S series are; they're still GPUs but intended only for parallelization. Those still have all the capabilities necessary to do 3D rendering if you really wanted them to, without having to install any 3rd party drivers. Xeon Phi is not a GPU, it's a cluster of CPUs. Xeon Phis are designed to run x86 code, and to my understanding, their drivers are not capable of graphics rendering (without the need of 3rd party software renderers). With actual GPUs, you can use something like OpenCL and it works for any hardware that supports it out of the box. Though Xeon Phi supports OpenCL, there are caveats. Intel seems to prefer consumers use their own proprietary compilers.
Keep in mind that the main difference between a many-core CPU and a GPU is how they're designed to handle calculations. GPUs are designed to process massively-parallel tasks; they're awful at multitasking. CPUs, meanwhile, are best for multitasking rather than parallelization. This is why CPUs use things like Hyper Threading while GPUs don't/shouldn't. This has good visual representations why many-core CPU are fundamentally different than GPUs:
https://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsdesktop/NVIDIA-GPU-Architecture-45c11e6d
Scroll down to the part that says "2. Hardware Architecture". You can see in the diagrams how each CPU core gets its own dedicated L1+L2 cache and registers. Meanwhile, GPUs do clusters instead.
it is... but made for computing
That's what Nvidia's Tesla or AMD's FirePro S series are; they're still GPUs but intended only for parallelization. Those still have all the capabilities necessary to do 3D rendering if you really wanted them to, without having to install any 3rd party drivers. Xeon Phi is not a GPU, it's a cluster of CPUs. Xeon Phis are designed to run x86 code, and to my understanding, their drivers are not capable of graphics rendering (without the need of 3rd party software renderers). With actual GPUs, you can use something like OpenCL and it works for any hardware that supports it out of the box. Though Xeon Phi supports OpenCL, there are caveats. Intel seems to prefer consumers use their own proprietary compilers.
Keep in mind that the main difference between a many-core CPU and a GPU is how they're designed to handle calculations. GPUs are designed to process massively-parallel tasks; they're awful at multitasking. CPUs, meanwhile, are best for multitasking rather than parallelization. This is why CPUs use things like Hyper Threading while GPUs don't/shouldn't. This has good visual representations why many-core CPU are fundamentally different than GPUs:
https://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsdesktop/NVIDIA-GPU-Architecture-45c11e6d
Scroll down to the part that says "2. Hardware Architecture". You can see in the diagrams how each CPU core gets its own dedicated L1+L2 cache and registers. Meanwhile, GPUs do clusters instead.
SweenJM
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 2017-09-10
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 2017-09-10
#5492631 Posted on: 11/16/2017 02:30 AM
I know that phi was not a gpu per se, but one cannot help but think that mpp\gpgpu wouldn't be where it is without gpu tech being where it is. I guess i brought it up to muse on intel's lack of interest in the graphics/gpu side of chipmaking. You old farts (and i include myself within this category) will remember Intel i740/750, and all the fanfare surrounding it as they partnered with real3d and C&T, and what a disappointment it was. How about the Intel "extreme" graphics on the 800 series stuff, or the 900 series with radeon xpress.......all crappy, always. I go back that far to illustrate the point that they have always half-assed it in the graphics department, and it seems to have bitten them slightly, but they will never admit that. intel has been around longer than nvidia or ati/amd, and could have easily caught up to them in the gpu field. Hell, they could have easily purchased both over time........intel's first graphics controller came out 1982 (Intel 82720), and neither of the other two really got going until 1995, and they still had some competition in the graphics market at that point (think hercules/Ali/3dfx/matrox/s3/etc.) After nvdia came along with on-chip T&L around 2000, graphics chip design didn't really hit another major paradigm shift until shader model 4 stuff started rolling out (programmable shader cores and all this mpp/gpgpu stuff), and that was 2005..................now intel is badly behind in that area (and yes, they have gotten much better, but still not great.......GT1 and GT2 stuff still awful). Is it unwillingness to travel too far outside x86? They ignored arm until recently too. I just can't help but feel like they really missed the boat on getting over on nvidia and amd in the graphics chip market. Larrabee was years too late, Phi was too. Intel's Nervana (yes they spelled it like that :rolleyes
is running on titan X's till they can get their own chip made, so they are now lagging behind in the tpu/nnp market too........and that is shaping up to be the next big thing.
I know that phi was not a gpu per se, but one cannot help but think that mpp\gpgpu wouldn't be where it is without gpu tech being where it is. I guess i brought it up to muse on intel's lack of interest in the graphics/gpu side of chipmaking. You old farts (and i include myself within this category) will remember Intel i740/750, and all the fanfare surrounding it as they partnered with real3d and C&T, and what a disappointment it was. How about the Intel "extreme" graphics on the 800 series stuff, or the 900 series with radeon xpress.......all crappy, always. I go back that far to illustrate the point that they have always half-assed it in the graphics department, and it seems to have bitten them slightly, but they will never admit that. intel has been around longer than nvidia or ati/amd, and could have easily caught up to them in the gpu field. Hell, they could have easily purchased both over time........intel's first graphics controller came out 1982 (Intel 82720), and neither of the other two really got going until 1995, and they still had some competition in the graphics market at that point (think hercules/Ali/3dfx/matrox/s3/etc.) After nvdia came along with on-chip T&L around 2000, graphics chip design didn't really hit another major paradigm shift until shader model 4 stuff started rolling out (programmable shader cores and all this mpp/gpgpu stuff), and that was 2005..................now intel is badly behind in that area (and yes, they have gotten much better, but still not great.......GT1 and GT2 stuff still awful). Is it unwillingness to travel too far outside x86? They ignored arm until recently too. I just can't help but feel like they really missed the boat on getting over on nvidia and amd in the graphics chip market. Larrabee was years too late, Phi was too. Intel's Nervana (yes they spelled it like that :rolleyes
is running on titan X's till they can get their own chip made, so they are now lagging behind in the tpu/nnp market too........and that is shaping up to be the next big thing.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2169
Joined: 2006-09-02
Raja has spoken!!!