Article: Parallelism at HotPar 2010
By: AM (myname4rwt.delete@this.jee-male.com), August 5, 2010 3:51 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
anon (anon@anon.com) on 8/4/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>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.
*You* are missing the point. Games are examples of workloads which utilize GPU hw fairly well, and I expect so does the Warp rasterizer wrt CPU, so the suggestion is entirely fair. Even more so if you consider what most people buy ever faster GPUs and CPUs for.
---------------------------
>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.
*You* are missing the point. Games are examples of workloads which utilize GPU hw fairly well, and I expect so does the Warp rasterizer wrt CPU, so the suggestion is entirely fair. Even more so if you consider what most people buy ever faster GPUs and CPUs for.
