Nvidia is officially scared. They are trying to throw senseless FUD around.

They know quite well what will happen if Intel manages to develop GPU solutions that do not suck at gaming.

"Larrabee is the GPU a CPU designer would build"

Really? Gee, I hadn't thought of this. I mean, now that you point it out, Larrabee is a GPU, and Intel is a CPU designer. Wow. This is pretty epic news, Kirk.

Okay, okay, I poke fun. How about we actually find out what Larrabee is missing? Or why it's so un-GPU-like?

Fusion and Larrabee+CPU are quite similar, except Larrabee is an external solution.

This reminds me of Sony's PS3. The Cell CPU was supposed to replace the graphics card at first, but once they realized it would never perform 3D graphics like a GPU can, they went to nVidia for support. But in the end, they have a very powerful CPU for physics and I guess AI to some extent. The problem with the Cell CPU though is that its not based on the x86 architecture and its more complicated to program for.

I think Fusion and Larrabee+CPU will be nice, however, you'll always need a graphics card if you want to do some large amounts of pixel or vertex shaders (even voxel based raytracing could take advantage of this by detailing the voxels). I dont think we're ever going back to software rendering (ie all on the CPU) -- at least not completely.

Kirk says that AMD hasn't made a competitve GPU for 2 years now ... well just recently the 3870 X2 was the fastest GPU available until the 9800 GX2 was released. Not to mention the 3DMark06 records are held by quad crossfire.

Kirk also seems to think AMD wont be competitve in the future of GPU's because theyve pulled engineers into Fusion? I might be guessing here, but I think its a good guess that the 4870 will be much more competitve in terms of bang for buck than the 9900GTX 512bit bus card nV has planned.

I guess having smooth and non-abrasive public statements is not a job requirement for being chief scientist.

This is somewhat bemusing since there were 90 MILLION sales of discrete graphics cards in 2007 with an Average sale price of $257. Surely some of those cards were bought to play games with?

HALO 3 is rendered at 1152x640 but no one complains about that. For a laugh I ran the demo of Crysis at HIGH in DX10 @ 1152x864 (a fair bit higher than HALO) and it averaged 51FPS with a minimum of 30FPS, though this was on a 8800GTX SLI system. However it looked far, far better than HALO 3.

I think the biggest short term and long term problem for Nvidia is that AMD is using the former ATI for not just the integrated graphics portion of their PC offering, but moving all their core logic to ATI. That includes SERVERS.

Weren't Nvidia chipsets a mainstay in Opteron servers, not more than 18 months ago? Yeah, AMD's server share is down, but they weren't using (junky) ATI chipsets, that I recall.

Part of AMD's fabled 'open' approach was a strong reliance on Nvidia...is that not right? And that revenue stream is disappearing due to AMD's desire to have a 'platform' in house.

Intel stated that the future is similar with fusion( or the Intel counterpart )
why they are buiding a discrete card?
intel is selling more integrated graphic then ATI and Nvidia .
the low end of the market is belonging to Intel,so at high end or even mainstream cant compete with ati or Nvidia . So why
Intel is building a platform!!!}*
Great:))
PS very good idea instead of buying a PS3 I better buy a AMD/Intel platform.
Long live gaming on PC!

"AMD has been declining because it hasn't built a competitive graphics architecture for almost two years now—ever since the AMD/ATI merger. They've been pulling engineers [from the GPU teams] to Fusion, which integrates GPU technology onto the CPU".

If pulling off this strategy has been the reason behind ATI's lackluster releases, it is insane. Has it ever occurred to AMD why intel is not taking the CPU-GPU integration route? Nothing competitive will come out of this compromise.

Cyrix MediaGX, part deuce, here we come.

Intel could say that a GPU is what you get when you discard accuracy for speed. Hence the whole "our GPUs are great for scientific calculations!" but don't support the IEEE standard for floating point ops.

Yes, Nvidia makes great GPUs, which work great for games. No, Intel is probably not going to blast them out of the water with Larrabee, at least when it comes to game performance. I do think that Larrabee will eat Nvidia for lunch when it comes to scientific computing and other supercomputer workloads, CUDA or not.

As for AMD, I sure hope they shine like a diamond, and SOON. Intel vs Nvidia with no AMD makes me shiver.

I dont care if its a GPU a CPU designer would come up with. What he expects us to believe is that this is a relevant idea. All I care about is performance, I dont care about the design on the inside. If Looloobee performs with the best of them, or better, then who cares?

"I'm not going to get into all of the details especially for Larrabee, but they’re missing some pretty important pieces about how a GPU works," he added.

David Kirk is being so sneaky... but even if he stays quiet, eventually Intel will realize they forgot video out.

Aw, the statement ends with AMD which started to Intel. :( I thought we are talking about Larrabee, so how about including VIA GPU then. No body talks about VIA as competitor lately. Always AMD as the inferior from CPU to GPU how about VIA and others?

mis post, whoops