Lucid's Multi-GPU Wonder: More Information on the Hydra 100
by Derek Wilson on August 22, 2008 4:00 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Barriers to Entry and Final Words
Depending on the patents Lucid has, neither NVIDIA nor ATI may be able to build a competing bit of hardware / software for use in their own solutions. And then there is the quesetion: what will NVIDIA and ATI attempt to do in order to be anticompetitive (err, I mean to continue to promote their own solutions to or platforms surrounding multi-GPU).
Because of the fact that both NVIDIA and ATI already participate in anti-competitive practices by artificially limiting the functionality of their hardware on competing platforms, it doesn't seem like a stretch to think they'll try something here as well. But can they break it?
Maybe and maybe not. At a really crappy level they could detect whether or not the hardware is in the system and refuse to do anything 3D. If they're a little nicer they could detect whether the Hydra driver is running and refuse to play 3D while it is active. Beyond that it doesn't seem like there is really much room to do anything like they've been doing. The Lucid software and hardware is completely transparent to the game, the graphics driver and the hardware. None of those components need to know anything for this to work.
As AMD and NVIDIA have to work closely with graphics card and motherboard vendors, they could try and strong arm Lucid out of the market by threatening either (overtly or not) the supply of their silicon to certain OEMs. This could be devastating to Lucid, as we've already see what the fear of an implication can do to software companies in the situation with Assassin's Creed (when faced with the option of applying an already available fix or pulling support for DX10.1 which only AMD supports, they pulled it). This type of thing seems the largest unknown to us.
Of course, while it seems like an all or nothing situation that would serve no purpose but to destroy the experience of end users, NVIDIA and ATI have lots of resources to work on this sort of "problem" and I'm sure they'll try their best to come up with something. Maybe one day they'll wake up and realize (especially if one starts to dominate over the other other) that Microsoft and Intel got slammed with antitrust suits for very similar practices.
Beyond this, they do still need to get motherboard OEMs to place the Hydra 100 on their boards. Or they need to get graphics hardware vendors to build boards with the hardware on them. This increases cost, and OEMs are really sensitive to cost increases. At the same time, a platform that can run both AMD and NVIDIA solutions in multi-GPU configurations has added value. As does a single card multi-GPU solution that gets better performance than even the ones from AMD and NVIDIA.
The parts these guys sell will still have to compete in the retail market, so they can't price themselves out of competition. More performance is great, but they have to worry about price/performance and their own cost. We think this will be more attractive to high end motherboard vendors than anyone else. And we really hope Intel adopts it and uses instead of nForce 100 or nForce 200 chips to enable flexible multi-GPU. Assuming it works of course.
Anyway, Lucid's Hyrda 100 is a really cool idea. And we really hope it works like Lucid says it will. Most of the theory seems sound, and while we've seen it in action, we need to put it to the test and look hard at latency and scaling. And we really really want to get excited. So we really really need hardware.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
57 Comments
View All Comments
Spivonious - Monday, August 25, 2008 - link
I don't think nVidia or AMD will try to force Lucid out of the market. If I can actually get a 100% increase in performance from purchasing a second video card, I will.This chip only means more sales for nVidia and AMD.
7Enigma - Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - link
But that doesn't help their bottom line in the end. Right now CF and SLI are not very popular due to their scaling and custom profile issues. Because of that, many people spring for the highest priced single card they can afford. This keeps the market segment basically tiered the way any business would like. You have low end parts, mid-grade, and uber parts.Now throw in the possibility that this Hydra chip works as specified. That 3 tier system just fell apart. When you look at most of the non-mainstream parts from both sides (for example Nvidia's 280, 200, and say 9800/8800GTS), you'll notice that while the price of those chips are drastically different, the performance is not near as different. This makes sense from an R&D standpoint to recoup costs, but from a logical standpoint shelling out $650 for the 280 when it debuted WOULD NOT make sense if 2 200's or 2 9800's was significantly faster for the same or less total $$$.
That's why both ATI/AMD and Nvidia don't want them in the market. It destroys the pricing structure, and would place much more influence on the bang for the buck part (currently this would hurt Nvidia with their 280 and favor slightly ATI/AMD with their cheaper 4870 and 4850).
Why would I spend twice as much for a 30% increase in performance with a top of the line single card solution, when I could just get two of the cheaper version for a near 60% increase over the single top card (using general performance of the latest cards)? Sure I'd need a board to support it, but it would make the SLI/CF mobo's MUCH MUCH more attractive then they currently are (I have no plans to purchase a dual-slot mobo with my upcoming build....unless we can get some actual data before Jan09...not likely).
jnanster - Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - link
This is terrible!I was all set to buy a new system in a few months.
Now I have to wait again, again.
shin0bi272 - Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - link
lol sorry dude... but hey this way you can wait for 8 core nehalem cpus too.TheDoc9 - Monday, August 25, 2008 - link
This article reads like the same sort of hype-machine dribble that many of the dot-com wonder companies used before the 2001 collapse so they could get investors interested.The writer of this piece is fortunately skeptical and he should be, more so even. I hope I'm wrong and we see this technology in a year or so, but it reminds me of Constellation 3D.
shin0bi272 - Sunday, August 24, 2008 - link
The way they outlined it in one of their diagrams is, an instruction which usually goes from the cpu to the northbridge to the gpus and then the gpu's sort out which card should render the command. The Hydra changes that to, cpu to northbridge to hydra to which ever gpu is ready for a new instruction. Which means its essentially taking the place of the little bridge between the gpus and the chip that makes the decision on which card is rendering the scene.Nvidia and AMD could have put a chip like this on their motherboards yeah but then you wouldn't need to buy 2 of the same card (and it would possibly work for the competitors card too like the hydra does). Nvidia never tried a motherboard chip to my knowledge and ati did at one time do a y cable and software controlled card selection. But I dont believe that they had a chip on the motherboard either. That reminds me of the difference between a software raid5 card and a hardware raid5 card. The hardware raid card has much better performance but it costs 3x as much. Cost could still be a factor with this chip too. I mean if it ads an extra 20 or 50 dollars to a motherboard gamers will have no problem with that. But if its an extra 200 dollars would they? Gotta make back all that R&D money somehow even if Intel backed them.
Another question is will this solution require a multi y-cable type device like ati used to do? If the different cards are rendering the scene at different times it would stand to reason. Or will one card be designated as the output card and all finished scenes be sent to that card? That would probably be a bad idea latency wise but who wants to buy a 4way y-split cable? Then again if im going to get linear performance out of sli I can spring for a cable. Could even make a 4 way hub sort of device so that all of the cards would feed into it and then one into the monitor. Could also do a multi-in and multi-out hub to do multiple monitors (though you might not need to do that it could be easier to add and subtract monitors with one).
computerfarmer - Sunday, August 24, 2008 - link
It is nice to here about new products. I hope to see this work.I am still waiting for the AMD 790GX/SB750 review.
MamiyaOtaru - Sunday, August 24, 2008 - link
What are the odds this will be cross platform? If it relies on drivers for doing a lot of stuff odds are it will not be, which would make it a nonstarter for me. And yes I know close to no one cares ;) I do though and I'd be interested to know.metro15 - Sunday, August 24, 2008 - link
hey. they do not need any motherboard manufacturer. Imagine a Intel Labaree graphic card with many cores synchronized with Lucid chip. The performance would be unbeatable.pool1892 - Sunday, August 24, 2008 - link
larrabee does not need hydra. it will reconfigure itself to suit the load. and with something like larrabee gen2 it will have qpi, which results in much lower latencies and much higher bandwidth.larrabee could even achieve more than linear skaling. (theoretically more cores could result in less context changes, which means more cache hits and less waiting cycles - this will of course not happen in reality)