Intel Larrabee GPU / GPGPU based on the old P54C Pentium ?

Discussion in 'AMD 64 Bit' started by AirRaid, Jul 14, 2008.

  1. AirRaid

    AirRaid Guest

    Intel's Larrabee GPU based on secret Pentagon tech, sorta [Updated]

    By Jon Stokes

    In a recent interview with German tech site heise.de, Intel's Pat
    Gelsinger let slip* there's some interesting information that I've
    been sitting on since last year, but haven't published: the processor
    cores that make up Intel's forthcoming Larrabee GPU are based on the
    original Pentium core design. Larrabee is, in essence, a bunch of P54C
    (i.e. pre-MMX) Pentium cores that have been enhanced with very wide
    vector floating-point resources and ganged together to make the brains
    of a flexible, x86-based GPU.


    *Update: Intel contacted me to clarify that Gelsinger did not, in
    fact, tell heise.de that Larrabee was based on P54C. This was
    something that was apparently mangled in the Babelfish translation,
    and Andreas at heise.de was pulling the P54C detail from some other
    source. Nonetheless, I had already heard the information about the
    Larrabee-Pentium-Pentagon connection from a source of my own, so I do
    vouch for it.

    You're probably wondering why Intel picked the old P54C to base
    Larrabee off of, instead of, say, the later P55 part with MMX. The
    reason, which Gelsinger did not reveal to heise.de and which comes
    from a source of mine, is a bit surprising, in that it involves the
    Pentagon.
    Say "Pentagon Pentium" five times fast

    Quite some time ago, after the Pentium was obsolete and Intel had
    moved on, the company gave the RTL code for the processor to the
    Pentagon so that the military could continue to fabricate a radiation
    hardened version of it for use in military applications. Trailing-edge
    hardware like the Pentium has the advantage of having been thoroughly
    tested and debugged (cf. the P54C's infamous FDIV bug), and at the
    time the military had its own fab facilities that could do some low-
    volume fabrication. (I'm sure they still have such facilities for
    prototyping.) So the Pentagon cleaned up the P54C's RTL code and began
    producing a rad-hard version of the chip for military use.

    A few years later, when the Pentagon had moved on from the P54C, they
    offered the RTL back to Intel. So Intel took the core, which has a
    very small footprint and by this time had been pretty thoroughly
    debugged, and modified it for use in the many-core chip that later
    became Larrabee.

    Speaking of five times fast

    While I'm just spilling all kinds of Larrabee beans, I might as well
    drop another, performance-related tidbit that came my way. In an
    upcoming SIGGRAPH paper, Intel will claim that Larrabee has 20x the
    performance per watt of a Core 2 Duo and half the single-threaded
    performance. It also has a 4MB coherent L2, and three-operand vector
    instructions.

    Note that I don't have any more context for the information I just
    gave, so I'm not sure if "half the performance of Core 2 Duo" is a
    clock-for-clock figure or not. If it is, recall that the Pentium's
    pipeline is less than half the depth of Core 2's, so if the GPU does
    debut in the 1.7GHz to 2.5GHz range, then that will help it in Core 2
    comparisons. The other big unknown is the type of workload that Intel
    is using for this ballpark performance figure. When it comes to in-
    order (i.e., Larrabee) vs. out-of-order (i.e., Core 2) and short
    pipeline vs. long pipeline, the type of workload involved makes all
    the difference. So these few details that I've given tell you a lot
    less than you might think at first; but something is better than
    nothing—and nothing is what we have so far about Larrabee's
    peformance.


    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...-gpu-based-on-secret-pentagon-tech-sorta.html


    Hmmm
    If Intel is using old Pentium CPU technology in Larrabee, I hope they
    also use old GPU tech for the rasterisation portions of the chip.
    Specifically, Lockheed Martin Real3D graphics technology, which Intel
    once owned the patents to, and probably still has knowledge of.
     
    AirRaid, Jul 14, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. * AirRaid:
    > *Update: Intel contacted me to clarify that Gelsinger did not, in
    > fact, tell heise.de that Larrabee was based on P54C. This was
    > something that was apparently mangled in the Babelfish translation,


    That's why it's rather stupid to write about an article that you even
    don't understand.

    > Say "Pentagon Pentium" five times fast


    The whole Pentagon storylone is just crap. Military agencies don't
    produce microprocessors, they just buy them from certain vendors (intel
    being one of them).

    So just another AirRaid post on the usual bottom-low level.

    Benjamin
     
    Benjamin Gawert, Jul 14, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. AirRaid

    AirRaid Guest

    On Jul 14, 9:42 am, Benjamin Gawert <> wrote:
    > * AirRaid:
    >
    > > *Update: Intel contacted me to clarify that Gelsinger did not, in
    > > fact, tell heise.de that Larrabee was based on P54C. This was
    > > something that was apparently mangled in the Babelfish translation,

    >
    > That's why it's rather stupid to write about an article that you even
    > don't understand.
    >
    > > Say "Pentagon Pentium" five times fast

    >
    > The whole Pentagon storylone is just crap. Military agencies don't
    > produce microprocessors, they just buy them from certain vendors (intel
    > being one of them).
    >
    > So just another AirRaid post on the usual bottom-low level.
    >
    > Benjamin


    I didn't WRITE that you moron. Notice I included a ****ing LINK, you
    ass.

    Also, Military / Government agencies DO make their own
    microprocessors, in smaller quantities than consumer/industrial,
    etc.
     
    AirRaid, Jul 15, 2008
    #3
  4. * AirRaid:

    [useless fullquote deleted]

    > I didn't WRITE that you moron. Notice I included a ****ing LINK, you
    > ass.


    This was generally said you stupid retard. Not that I expect a
    crossposting robot to understand that.

    > Also, Military / Government agencies DO make their own
    > microprocessors, in smaller quantities than consumer/industrial,
    > etc.


    Really? So exactly which microprocessors were made by
    government/military agencies?

    Benjamin
     
    Benjamin Gawert, Jul 15, 2008
    #4
  5. AirRaid

    Augustus Guest

    >Also, Military / Government agencies DO make their own
    >microprocessors, in smaller quantities than consumer/industrial,
    >etc.


    Milspec processors are mfg by Texas Instruments, Intel, AMD, etc. and NOT by
    any government agency. Hardening against EMP, X-Ray and Gamma radiation,
    large thermal extremes, amongst other things are some of many differences.
     
    Augustus, Jul 15, 2008
    #5
  6. AirRaid

    Jure Sah Guest

    Benjamin Gawert pravi:
    > Really? So exactly which microprocessors were made by
    > government/military agencies?


    Chips on industrial boards made in Israel.

    Just kidding...


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iD8DBQFIfP6kB6mNZXe93qgRAqA/AKCwSqIWEQETTViwBEl1fnfTcv89QQCdHMzC
    SvYijPc0sjUzfjGnOVsOEMA=
    =Iszi
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Jure Sah, Jul 15, 2008
    #6
  7. Augustus wrote:
    >> Also, Military / Government agencies DO make their own
    >> microprocessors, in smaller quantities than consumer/industrial,
    >> etc.

    >
    > Milspec processors are mfg by Texas Instruments, Intel, AMD, etc. and NOT by
    > any government agency. Hardening against EMP, X-Ray and Gamma radiation,
    > large thermal extremes, amongst other things are some of many differences.
    >
    >

    I know that in the 80's and early 90's some chips were made by producers
    who do not make any chips for commercial sale. When you are making odd
    stuff in low volume there are a lot of place which can make low volume
    chips and which have very secure development area. I would be amazed if
    places like Sandia and Los Alamos didn't have in-house and very secure
    small fabs.

    This is not to say that commercial vendors aren't involved, because I
    don't know, but for many of these applications a single wafer is a
    lifetime supply, and research facilities, government, commercial and
    educational, can do processing in that volume. Hardened sometimes means
    "large process" to stand alpha hits, so it need not be the latest 350
    angstrom process.

    No commercial fab is going to shut down and convert to a RadHard or Mil
    Spec process to knock out a few wafers, or even a few hundred thousand
    copies of a specialty chip, set up is too expensive, so I think most
    specialty chips are going to be done in specialty fabs.

    When I used to sell computers to LANL, we did mil spec gas tight wire
    wrap on the floppy drives instead of jumpers. Yes that was back in Z80
    days, the original PC.

    --
    Bill Davidsen
    He was a full-time professional cat, not some moonlighting
    ferret or weasel. He knew about these things.
     
    Bill Davidsen, Jul 16, 2008
    #7
  8. * Bill Davidsen:

    > I know that in the 80's and early 90's some chips were made by producers
    > who do not make any chips for commercial sale. When you are making odd
    > stuff in low volume there are a lot of place which can make low volume
    > chips and which have very secure development area. I would be amazed if
    > places like Sandia and Los Alamos didn't have in-house and very secure
    > small fabs.


    They don't. None of the military or governmental agencies has any such
    facilities. In all military projects (no matter how secret they are)
    there are always commercial vendors included in one form or another.

    > This is not to say that commercial vendors aren't involved, because I
    > don't know, but for many of these applications a single wafer is a
    > lifetime supply, and research facilities, government, commercial and
    > educational, can do processing in that volume. Hardened sometimes means
    > "large process" to stand alpha hits, so it need not be the latest 350
    > angstrom process.


    Chip fabrication is a extremely delicate process. Just setting up a fab
    isn't enough, it takes a lot of effort to get the process running
    effectively enough to not only produce key rings.

    > No commercial fab is going to shut down and convert to a RadHard or Mil
    > Spec process to knock out a few wafers, or even a few hundred thousand
    > copies of a specialty chip, set up is too expensive, so I think most
    > specialty chips are going to be done in specialty fabs.


    While it might look to be like this to you it simply isn't the case.
    There are enough commercial vendors who are security certified and also
    have no problem doing small series of specialty chips. Companies like
    intel or TI have much more than the fabs where they make their mass
    market chips. And not to forget that most MIL-Std ICs while not reaching
    the numbers of standard versions in fact are mass made articles today.

    Benjamin
     
    Benjamin Gawert, Jul 18, 2008
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. AirRaid
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    320
    mr deo
    Jun 19, 2007
  2. AirRaid
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    371
    AirRaid
    Sep 22, 2007
  3. NV55
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    548
  4. AirRaid
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    560
    Trimble Bracegirdle
    Apr 26, 2008
  5. NV55
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    356
Loading...

Share This Page