<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- Generated on Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:37:46 -0800 -->
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <atom:link href="http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/michael-abrash-biography/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <title>Intel Software Network Comments Feed</title>
    <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/michael-abrash-biography</link>
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <item>
      <title>By Eric Parker</title>
      <description><![CDATA[ I read your GDC presentation materials on rendering using Larrabee. The approach is interesting, and I am very excited about Larrabee, but I have a couple of worries: 

1) Larrabee will be evaluated in the marketplace based on its performance relative to GPUs for graphics (e.g. Quake 3 arena timedemo).  It must always tie or beat the GPUs - or die.

2) rasterization will take away cycles from shaders, physics or other Larrabee tasks. 

Based on the overriding importance of 1), and the desire to realize exciting new capabilities for 2), I think serious consideration should be made to dedicating hardware to rasterization. Rasterization is going to require a lot of resources nearly all the time. Even if you can match the GPUs, the question is at what cost? If there are no resources left for shaders or other applications then what new value is Larrabee delivering?  

 ]]></description>
      <link>http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/michael-abrash-biography/#comment-22411</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:55:57 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/michael-abrash-biography/#comment-22411</guid>
    </item>
  </channel></rss>
