2 ms·
I think Intel's strategy, in a broad sense, makes sense. Xeon Phi succeeded in a few tiny niches, but they need a real GPGPU in order to compete in the broader
by mastax 3y ago
I think Intel's strategy, in a broad sense, makes sense. Xeon Phi succeeded in a few tiny niches, but they need a real GPGPU in order to compete in the broader market this decade. They tried to make their microarchitecture broadly similar to their competitors' to reduce risk and improve software compatibility. They knew their architecture (and software) wouldn't be as good as their experienced competitors' but thought that at the high end they could use their advanced packaging technology as an advantage. In hindsight that was maybe over-ambitious if it caused the substantial delays (I don't think we know that for certain but it's a good guess) but maybe it will pay dividends in the next product. You do have to take some risks when you're in last place.
- nwiswell 3y agoI just don't understand why they would keep shutting programs down rather than doing course corrections toward a more competitive GPGPU. This behavior stretches all the way back to Larrabee in 2010. If I was a betting man, I would bet that this project is dead inside 36 months. And if I was a GPU designer, I'd accordingly not touch Intel with a barge pole. They've painted themselves into a corner. I personally know GPU experts who left Intel for Nvidia because of this. I can't imagine they would consider going back at this point.
- blagie 3y agoIf you look at this through an organizational lens -- how incentives line up for individuals -- rater than as what makes sense for Intel holistically, it might make more sense. You see similar behavior in many failing companies, as well as third world countries. You can't admit faults to iterate, and you need grand new initiatives.
- mastax 3y agoYou don't course correct Xeon Phi into a competitive GPGPU without starting over from scratch. The two are not similar.