Tim Sweeney likes Larrabee

Epic Games hasn't been a huge fan of Intel graphics. As you may remember, Epic Games executive Mark Rein has blamed Intel for crippling the gaming-capabilities of a large portion of the PC market by shackling systems with sub-par integrated graphics. Will Intel's graphics-capable Larrabee processor be more of the same or can we expect more out of Intel's latest hardware?

We caught up with Tim Sweeney, Epic Games founder, chief architect, and the man in charge of Unreal Engine development to get his thoughts on Larrabee. Intel's Larrabee-based graphics release is still over a year away, but it looks like the chip already has an important fan out in North Carolina.

GameSpot: Do you think that Larrabee represents where GPUs are going in the future?

Tim Sweeney: Yes. I believe the ability to replace large parts of the fixed-function pipeline, or bypass it entirely with a software-based renderer running on the GPU, will be the key to future rendering features. While the current GPU model has enabled an amazing 1000X increase in graphics performance, I remain mindful of the flexibility and potential for new features that we left behind at the end of the software rendering era in the late 1990's.

GS: What about Larrabee excites you the most and why?

TS: The most exciting opportunity for Larrabee is the possibility of Intel moving it down to the mid-range and low-end over time. If Larrabee eventually displaces Intel Integrated Graphics, that would bring compelling graphics to the masses. Intel could become a real force for good in the graphics market, which -- to be blunt -- hasn't been the case in recent years.

GS: Do you think that Larrabee would make sense for next-generation game consoles?

TS: Certainly.

31 Comments

  • sal_gado

    Posted Aug 13, 2008 5:19 am GMT

    What you all failed to realise is that Intel is not aiming at the graphics market with Larrabee. They just understood AMDs strategy, and it got them scared. Think AMD Fusion. Just to make it clear:

    Fusion is the union of CPU and GPU power, but since they cannot make it right away (lots of research to go), they divided it into three phases: one, CPU and GPU working together; two, CPU/GPU integrated; three, "GCPU", or CPU and GPU on one chip design.

    Now look at phase one and think: AMD launched the 780G chipset with a Radeon HD3200 integrated, waay more than they need to take on Intel's GMA kingdom. Also, they're advertising the Spider platform, a CPU+GPU+Chipset concept that just doesn't offer anything new YET.

    That said, AMD is on phase one of Fusion, a very real concept that will make ANY traditional x86 CPU obsolete. Intel has the best x86 processor on the market, and can push it a lot more if needed, but it still is a x86 processor, and they have NO graphics/stream processing experience.

    Now THAT scares Intel. THAT is why they're going for graphics now. They know it's just not a profitable market, but they have to enter it NOW to be competitive in the future. Who cares about nVidia? They make and will keep making great graphics card solutions, and probably remain competitive against AMD/ATI.

    In my humble opinion, it would a good time to buy AMD stocks...

  • IMP_ACT

    Posted Aug 11, 2008 3:05 pm GMT

    At the end of the day the pc & all that is integrated into it is limited by it's architecture. It's still based on the dated IBM. Surely if someone took the initiative to design a whole new cpu the possibilities would be amazing. Then they could really go to town on graphics.
    Yes, everyone would have to upgrade, all new hardware & software, etc, but look at the business this would generate for all the hardware & software companies. How many "cores" are you prepared to keep shelling out for? 32? 128? 512??? This multiple core BS will have to stop, if only for cost reasons. Due to heat limitations te core speeds can't really get any faster.
    Fix this problem first & the rest would be much easier. After all, all "Windows" really does is mask these problems & associate drivers so we don't have to mess about with xms memory, irq assignments, mem' access, etc'.
    Instead, we all complain about Microsoft & the monopoly they have but because of these design flaws we really have no choice & MS will just keep releasing the same program / OS every few years which we will all end up having to buy.
    At the end of the day you can paint a 3 legged chair any colour you like but it will still only have 3 legs.

  • schnarr

    Posted Aug 11, 2008 11:25 am GMT

    I'm not completely sold, myself. While there are great things you can do, Larrabee will need a massive memory pipeline and high speed memory to work quickly because everything but cache is on mainboard memory. That is GOOD if you want raytracing which needs entire scene access, but not not terribly useful for polygon rendering (because you don't need the whole scene).

    The main optimization in ditching the fixed function pipeline is you can parallel-ize a lot more, but that is essentially what shaders do, and the more functionality that goes into shaders, the less the fixed function pipeline is doing. Things like geometrical culling can vastly simplify a scene, while culling (at least in the backface way) is not practical for ray tracing (since surfaces can be curved).

    The way Larabee seems to be approaches scalability is to break the scene down and throw the pieces on different processors (for example, if you have 4 Larabee GPUs, it divides the monitor in 4 pieces). The sections then sort the scene and render individually (using its cache to form sort-order of in-memory scene objects). Carmack's criticism of this is that compared to rasterization, it's terribly inefficient and they make up for it by throwing more processors and a higher frequency rate. If GPUs gain the ability to quickly tessellate primitives (something Carmack is also skeptical of), they could have ray-trace like objects like spheres that scale to processor.

  • AmpedFear

    Posted Aug 9, 2008 9:52 pm GMT

    I think the future of GPU and or CPU is that CPU, GPU, and Sound Card Processors will be put in one small chip.

  • jazilla

    Posted Aug 8, 2008 10:52 pm GMT

    amazing, some coherent comments on something i am very interested in now. cool!

  • javierkatana

    Posted Aug 6, 2008 9:33 pm GMT

    Larrabee is a x86 capable part for pci-express, meant to compete against ati and nvidia, but it aint a graphic card only, unlike nvidia and ati cards which sport a rigid (soldered) graphic logic in the core + some narrow space for programming (the foundation of all gpus), Larrabee can run costume drivers for the whole render pipeline ( the order in which things are processed before display).

    The reason why some sli or crossfire games dont scale well, or some games run better with nvidia or ati parts, its because, the developer cant really decide what to render first, so, at best, nvidia/ati have to wait for a game to be near release and have their scientific monkeys profiling each game, so most of the tiame game profiles appears months after release.

    See larrabee as one of those chips for college students with empty logic, it has the best of a software renderer but it doesnt run in windows, the software layer runs in the chip itself and uses opengl/dx10 to show results. With such a feature for example you could update a PS3 or xbox 360 to shader model 5.0 and so on. It can be an adobe accelerator a folding home for the masses, why? it uses actual x86 code, the same we use to make apps, so no CUDA learning needed.

    If you had read tech sites like ars or theinquirer for the past 3 years, you would have expected this move, Nvidia is no longer targeting ATI, they're going for Intel, not for their market share, but for the relevance the market gives to cpus, lets say, if you sell a gpu (next 55nm GTX280) at the same price of an upcoming eight core mid range , and concentrate in super accelerating a few key applications like photoshop or HD video encoders, then the consumer from a not so distant future driven by real life earning needs would think "why a $400 32 core and a GTX 240*, when I mostly encode and post 30min design tutorials in youtube and make money with adobe at my uncles print shop"; then instead, he buys a $200 16 core and a $400* GTX 280.

    So the main stream conservative market no longer sees Nvidia as company for games or watching blu ray movies, the commodity becomes mainstream necessity (Intels playground). Nvidias worst nightmare isnt AMD which sports a market cap of $3.8 billion with 5 billions in debt after they bought ATI. Nvidia already enjoys a $10 billion market cap and only need discounts rebranded stuff and broader "the way is meant to be played" support to slow down ATIs earnings

    And Yes, Nvidia will win Larrabee`s 1st round, since larrabee is a proof of concept, on the other hand theres nehalem (and 8 to 84 core with a larrabee inside), Intel with 180 billion market cap and 9 times AMDs net income; this crappy vga maker worth 18 times nvidia not only sells cheap P4s united by an awesome architecture (coreduo) at higher prices than AMD, its also has been the world biggest gpu maker for a long time, yes, they make crap gpus, these are for everyone not some like us.

    How about if you give the same gpu tech chained monkeys 10 times the funding and permission to use 8 or more cores from the next cpu in order to create a gpu, well, with 32mb+ cache access at 45nm and up to (84) 3.8ghz cores then, after 5 years of paper and wafer cooking (nehalem dev cycle), theyll give you a reason to think "Hey! Nvidia didnt had alien technology applied in their cards and drivers, It was just about size, design and gigahertz, why would I buy an nvidia or an ati card?, when I can spend $400 in a 32 core cgpu that can later "slicross" in my new multi socket $130 mobo, yes some cores go for Havok physics". This my friend its THE WORST NIGHTMARE for Nvidias CEO and co-founder Jen-Hsun Huang.

    I have almost none consumer innocence for this or that brand due to my marketing career and geeky habits. My point, Nvidia is doing what its left for them to do, play hard and show no sweat, with their outstanding PR and marketing dep, everyone thinks they re in safe harbor. AMD made some investors go suicide and went red numbers, knowing this Intel plan, they bought a 6 billion "out of Jail" ticket. Now they can make the same as Intel and extend their fight 10 more years, the most brilliant hard decision.

    Nvidia, the respected Nvidia, needs a really rigid 0 error, road map and strategy to survive, they ve been doing this with near perfection for the last 2 years, until they made a $1200 million notebook chip fiasco blamed their provider (TSMC) for a design flaw which was their fault, and made HP to pay 50% for their own mistake. Interesting times to come, never the less my 8800 still deserves a life achievement award.

  • ScifiGuy7

    Posted Aug 6, 2008 3:32 am GMT

    From my extensive reading about Larrabee it's not an integrated graphics solution. It's actually a powerful GPU made up of multiple Pentium x86 processors that have been slightly modified to handle OGL/DX and software based rendering. It's designed as a Graphics Card solution.

    It's interesting. Intel hired Michael Abrash - the guy responsible for optimising code for Doom and Quake as well as working on the X-Box.

    The software based renderer could open up all sorts of features in games that we've never seen before. It will give game designers more freedom.

    Ultimately it will give consumers more choice. If they manage to get it into a dominant games console such as the next X-Box then I think that could make it a success. If not then they'll have a harder job of getting game developers on-side with the exception being the wide-spread familiarity with x86 based architecture.

    Good luck Intel.

  • ratix2

    Posted Aug 5, 2008 10:12 pm GMT

    oh, and by the way, heres a good look at larabee for those that want to see exactly whats going on (thats assuming that everybody here isnt a stupid git that doesent know what integrated graphics are):

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3367

  • zminosnz

    Posted Aug 5, 2008 6:40 pm GMT

    having read an article from another tech website, I'm personally impressed with what intel is developing.

    Larrabee could be the NEXT way forward in GPU, especially when thinking fully programmable multi GPU compared to the x2 or crossfire/SLI ideas that ATI/nVidia provide.

    I also agree with a-sa and think intel actually sell more IGPs than ati and nvidia put together.

  • Robborboy

    Posted Aug 5, 2008 4:11 pm GMT

    To the guy talking about a good integrated gfx solution. Have you not noticed that ALL consoles to date have had integrated cards, "and its worked out pretty well so far."

  • mysterylobster

    Posted Aug 5, 2008 4:02 pm GMT

    This was the shortest interview I've ever read. Wow...

    You only get three questions with Sweeney, and they have to be delivered as Haikus, like this:

    Do you think that Larrabee
    would make sense for next-
    generation game consoles?

    He's a strange, strange man who makes brilliant games.

  • adamas78

    Posted Aug 5, 2008 2:34 pm GMT

    Don't worry our chunky GFX cards will be around for some time! Sure intergrated GFX will service the main-stream consumer market, but gaming and workstation GFX will always require special hardware.
    Where are we at present? How far from the matrix? I use 3ds Max alot for architecture; now say I want to render a scene from Crysis as example; water, jungle, buildings etc (however in true photo-realism, matrix style), at 1920x1200 (typical monitor res) using my quad @4Ghz and Vray render...this scene would take in excess of 3 hours to render (acheiving photo-real results, although image quality can still be improved=longer render)
    Now say 3 hours per frame essentially. In order to have suitable frame-rates in-gaming, I see 30 min per second reasonible for HD gaming. So lets say 40FPS avg required - my system is taking 120hours to render 40 frames in close to true photorealism
    In essence - we have a long way to go with chunky hardware still

  • wildarmx

    Posted Aug 5, 2008 12:34 pm GMT

    im going to laugh at you all, when integrated graphics chips and this become commonplace. its technology, it will shrink, use less power and eventually not even require that large of a heat sink

  • chemeleon_789

    Posted Aug 5, 2008 10:38 am GMT

    So it could be seen as an accelerator, then. A alternate path that can avoid certain performance pitfalls inherent in the design of current GPUs. The real question is, will GPU's and the Larrabee be able to work together, or is it a choice between one or the other? If I'm to give up hardware accelerated 3D and an insane amount of processing cores, I'm going to have to be shown something seriously impressive. Like full HD realtime raytracing, or high quality volume rendering - something much better than what can be done on a conventional GPU, and I don't think that's possible.

  • nick15uk

    Posted Aug 5, 2008 9:54 am GMT

    I have to agree. When serious gamers go out and buy the next big rig, they don't take 'integrated graphics' into consideration at all. A waste of time if you ask me.

  • SrTVBR

    Posted Aug 5, 2008 8:16 am GMT

    I think Nvidia will win this battle.

  • actsai

    Posted Aug 5, 2008 5:49 am GMT

    Yeah... "Next-gen graphics are here courtesy of Intel; ask for Larrabee-powered boards in your friendly neighbour computer shop"

    All speculations no substance.

  • Deadmonkeys

    Posted Aug 5, 2008 12:43 am GMT

    Personally, I don't care what company produces the hardware as long as it's innovative. Intel may tank on this one, but it might still produce a different approach to graphics hardware in general, and that's an all-around good thing. Look at how Nvidia has started implementing PhysX compatibility on the 9800 GTX and 280 cards. Aegia hasn't exactly won people over, but I sure as hell downloaded the PhysX drivers for my 9800. Let Intel run. Wait for the benchmarks. If they mess up, don't buy it.

  • a-sa

    Posted Aug 4, 2008 10:02 pm GMT

    @dnp25: you don't know anything about Intel.
    GPU or CPU in the end is still a processor, and Intel is good at making processor. Larrabee may be suck, but thing may be diffirent with Larrabee2. Intel's IGP is suck in performance but brings more profit than the G92 or RV700. Does my boss want a ATI 4850 in a PC being used for email, document... ?

  • Einhanderkiller

    Posted Aug 4, 2008 9:21 pm GMT

    I think Carmack actually likes Larrabee for the same reasons Sweeney does.

  • lefonginc GameSpot staff member

    Posted Aug 4, 2008 8:54 pm GMT

    Intel is all over the places now!

  • dnp25

    Posted Aug 4, 2008 8:07 pm GMT

    larrabee is going to suck even before it releases by the time this piece of crap comes out on the market future games and the ever evolving graphics card market will be way ahead lets be honest intel knows nothing about graphics just look at their motherboard igp , what makes this any different. Just like with CONSOLES the graphics market will always belong to NVIDIA or ATI /AMD .XBOX 360 and WII = ATI gpu's ,PS3 = NVIDIA gpu .no INTEL nowhere not even the cpu's.

  • AFWorm

    Posted Aug 4, 2008 6:05 pm GMT

    This was the shortest interview I've ever read. Wow...

  • IXIWhistIXI

    Posted Aug 4, 2008 3:45 pm GMT

    I couldn't agree more with uberjannie.

    "Frankly, if a person wants a gamer pc, they buy a gamer pc, not a pc with integrated graphic chips xD"

  • pkesteem

    Posted Aug 4, 2008 3:45 pm GMT

    uberjannie, the day it becomes integrated, the issues mentioned will not be a problem.

  • uberjannie

    Posted Aug 4, 2008 3:25 pm GMT

    I dont like the idea of an fast GPU integrated on the motherboard.
    This because of several reason :
    -the head will be a problem
    -dissipate all the heat is going to be a real hell
    -the mediocre pc's for the home-users are going to get more expensive

    Frankly, if a person wants a gamer pc, they buy a gamer pc, not a pc with integrated graphic chips xD

  • Kh1ndjal

    Posted Aug 4, 2008 2:52 pm GMT

    if only

  • halBU

    Posted Aug 4, 2008 2:30 pm GMT

    ... and Carmack doesn't. Fight!

advertisement