By: EBFE (x.delete@this.y.com), July 26, 2012 2:27 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on July 25, 2012 11:14 am wrote:
> sf (pc.delete@this.email.com) on July 25, 2012 6:46 am wrote:
> > 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".
>
> Yes, I mentioned that in page 1 : )
>
> > What will
> >
> the graph look like if the driver is included in the calculation?
>
> Well that's
> hard to say. It will be worse, but by how much?
>
> Is the host CPU doing real
> calculations as well, or is it just doing setup?
>
> It also depends on the
> workload, for some the CPU is still more efficient.
>
> > What is the
> >
> currently best ratio of GPU to CPU?
>
> That depends on your workload.
>
> >
> Will the best future design be a
> > BlueGene/Q (for best I/O) driving an
> optimum number of GPUs (for best Compute)?
>
> If you look at the chart, it
> should be clear that BGQ stands alone and doesn't need GPUs. From a power
> perspective, it's superior to all existing GPUs - and it can run a far wider
> range of workloads.
>
> David
BGQ is about the same as 3GiB HD7970(947G/250W). So BGQ is quite likely to be inferior to a 6GiB incoming-gen Firestream.
[If I recall correctly, at launch time AMD listed 7970 GPU/board power as 210/250]
> sf (pc.delete@this.email.com) on July 25, 2012 6:46 am wrote:
> > 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".
>
> Yes, I mentioned that in page 1 : )
>
> > What will
> >
> the graph look like if the driver is included in the calculation?
>
> Well that's
> hard to say. It will be worse, but by how much?
>
> Is the host CPU doing real
> calculations as well, or is it just doing setup?
>
> It also depends on the
> workload, for some the CPU is still more efficient.
>
> > What is the
> >
> currently best ratio of GPU to CPU?
>
> That depends on your workload.
>
> >
> Will the best future design be a
> > BlueGene/Q (for best I/O) driving an
> optimum number of GPUs (for best Compute)?
>
> If you look at the chart, it
> should be clear that BGQ stands alone and doesn't need GPUs. From a power
> perspective, it's superior to all existing GPUs - and it can run a far wider
> range of workloads.
>
> David
BGQ is about the same as 3GiB HD7970(947G/250W). So BGQ is quite likely to be inferior to a 6GiB incoming-gen Firestream.
[If I recall correctly, at launch time AMD listed 7970 GPU/board power as 210/250]
