By: TacoBell (no.delete@this.spam.com), July 25, 2012 8:36 pm
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!
Bulldozer shares the FP units on a pair of cores while Ivybridge has dedicated FP units per core. However Bulldozer has DP FMA while Ivybridge does not. This means that if the processors ran at the same clockspeed the peak theoretical DP FLOPS of Bulldozer and Ivybridge should be the same for the same number of cores. Yet Bulldozer comes with twice the number of cores (8x) than Ivybridge (4x). So I really cannot understand the performance numbers.
> 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!
Bulldozer shares the FP units on a pair of cores while Ivybridge has dedicated FP units per core. However Bulldozer has DP FMA while Ivybridge does not. This means that if the processors ran at the same clockspeed the peak theoretical DP FLOPS of Bulldozer and Ivybridge should be the same for the same number of cores. Yet Bulldozer comes with twice the number of cores (8x) than Ivybridge (4x). So I really cannot understand the performance numbers.
