with
Oh look:
1./ They need 8 cores to do 2.5x the performance Intel Quad/i7. Well, Intel's 8 cores is on 2 chips, rather than one, but cheaply available, a la 2x Nehalem-EP. The performance of SPARC over intel is therefore 1.25x on a comparable 8 core system. Something tells me that on a $ basis, Intel will come out cheaper
2./ SIMD parallel supercomputing workloads; well that is very very similar to Larrabee, so by the end of the year, Intel will be snapping at SPARC as well as CUDA.
Ah, an honest opinion is welcome. But it is trumped by an educated opinion. And that is that we accept CUDA as a math/SIMD programming environment, not a "GPU" as you define. And Larrabee will be much more powerful/flexible than CUDA. So it will be "less" GPU than CUDA is. Background reading will reveal that Larrabee is actually CPU, and GPU functions are in software code, not hardware shaders. So Larrabee is actually CPU.
Don't let marketing and "leaks" fool you. Larrabee is as much supercomputing as it is GPU. But by targeting a consumer application (graphics) it will mean a superscalar CPU can be made at very accessible prices.
Expect Larrabee to kill off what is left of physx and potentially knock over both CUDA and clearspeed.
Ok, thanks for explaining to me then.