anon (anon@anon.com) on 8/2/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>AM (myname4rwt@jee-male.com) on 8/2/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 7/29/10 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>...
>>>When I hear crap like "the only interesting workloads are amenable to GPUs", it's
>>>quite annoying. Ditto for claimed 100X speed ups.
>>
>>Weren't you provided with a link some months ago (or perhaps last year) to where
>>you can find many original sources of GPU-related work which you can study?
>>
>>Wasn't it suggested to you that should you (or anyone else, for that matter) choose
>>to dispute results obtained by particular researchers, it should better be done
>>by referencing the work and showing why quoted results are misleading, downright wrong etc.?
>>
>>And since you are apparently calling crap all 100x and higher speedups, it's reasonable
>>to ask if you have any proof wrt every piece of published research with such results.
>>I don't think you have any though.
>
>I didn't see this, could you point it out to me? This is an apples to apples comparison,
>of optimized and parallelized (simd and mimd) code on both GPUs versus contemporary CPUs of today, right?

Well, I now finished my study and have made a startling discovery.

Based on the same scientific method used by people making outlandish GPU claims, I conclude that they must all have a strange bug in their high end GPUs. Whenever a permutation of the phrase 10x or 100x appears on the screen, it does not get displayed properly IF there are also '?' symbols appearing. Instead, it is thought that pictures of fairies and unicorns and leprechauns are displayed.