By: sf (pc.delete@this.email.com), July 25, 2012 6:46 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on July 25, 2012 1:37 am wrote:
> New computational efficiency data shows GPUs with a clear edge over CPUs, but
> the gap is narrowing as CPUs adopt wide vectors (e.g. AVX). Surprisingly, a
> throughput CPU is the most energy efficient processor, offering hope for future
> architectures. Our data also shows some advantages of AMD's Bulldozer, and the
> overhead associated with highly scalable server CPUs.
>
> Comments and feedback
> welcome!
>
> David
For GPU compute, a CPU is needed to be "driving".
What will the graph look like if the driver is included in the calculation?
What is the currently best ratio of GPU to CPU?
Will the best future design be a BlueGene/Q (for best I/O) driving an optimum number of GPUs (for best Compute)?
> New computational efficiency data shows GPUs with a clear edge over CPUs, but
> the gap is narrowing as CPUs adopt wide vectors (e.g. AVX). Surprisingly, a
> throughput CPU is the most energy efficient processor, offering hope for future
> architectures. Our data also shows some advantages of AMD's Bulldozer, and the
> overhead associated with highly scalable server CPUs.
>
> Comments and feedback
> welcome!
>
> David
For GPU compute, a CPU is needed to be "driving".
What will the graph look like if the driver is included in the calculation?
What is the currently best ratio of GPU to CPU?
Will the best future design be a BlueGene/Q (for best I/O) driving an optimum number of GPUs (for best Compute)?
