Barrons wrote a positive article about my employer, but Larrabee continues to be mentioned as a threat. I wish more analysts and reporters would take a wait-and-see attitude WRT to Intel graphics. Let's face it, Intel's track record is poor in this area.

I really suck at posting to my blog. I just don't seem to have the time - or is it inclination? There's a lot of noise coming out of Intel on Larrabee and graphics, but so far it's just noise. Larrabee is the perfect chip - no benchmarks, only Powerpoint. Oh, I've been told they have these great simulators for Larrabee 2 and 3. Come on folks, why are you giving Intel so much credibility for something that doesn't exist yet. Sure the silicon may work just fine, that is not the challenge. Intel has to take a completely non-traditional graphics architecture and make it work efficiently against NVIDIA and AMD/ATI architectures that have been finely tuned for years. Intel has a very long way to go in matching our experience in writing graphics drivers. Just look at the disaster that is Intel graphics today. Read the recently revealed e-mail reports from Microsoft over the "Vista capable" program to allow sub-standard Intel graphics to be compatible with the Vista program. Intel still can't ship DX10 drivers.

Here's a perfect example of why Intel is wasting it's money and time building chipsets - we can do a much better job. But Intel want to control the platform, even if that means consumers are stuck with inferior components. It's a crying shame.