AM (myname4rwt@jee-male.com) on 8/4/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>none (none@none.com) on 8/3/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>AM (myname4rwt@jee-male.com) on 8/3/10 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>[...]
>>>Here is a very simple reality check for you (and David): get a machine with win7
>>>on and check how fast warp can render, say, Crysis (use the benchmark tool). GTX
>>>460 (available from $200 these days) cranks out over 30 fps in 1680x1050, VHD and
>>>over 60 fps (GASP) in SLI, same mode. And very short of 30/60 fps in 1920x1080, VHD from the report I saw.
>>>
>>>How fast do you think CPU can handle this task (btw, a representative of a very
>>>widespread class of workloads), even the Intel's 6 core you mentioned? And how many
>>>Intel's 6-core crown jewels selling for $1k+ a pop will it take to get the same performance?
>>>
>>>Have a nice time reevaluating your claims (or better yet, running the test and reporting the results).
>>>
>>>PS Reportedly, Warp provides good scalability with core count and makes good use
>>>even of SSE 4.1, so I suggest you should pull some evidence before you start talking about poorly-written code here.
>>
>>Funny... or perhaps not that much. Are you aware that
>>GPU have graphic units that will certainly crush any
>>general-purpose CPU? But that's not what is being discussed
>>here, the subject is *GP*GPU.
>
>Ugh, no.
>
>The poster I replied to was talking not about characteristics of GP-computing workloads,
>but about bw and FP capacity advantages

*In the context of GP computing*!!! (well, not GP as in real general purpose, but parallel floating point HPC work).

GPUs have special hardware to do 3d graphics operations which do give them a huge advantage there (and may be applicable to a very small subset of the above, but don't appear to be in general).

Going on a rant about video game performance means you have missed the point.