Article: Parallelism at HotPar 2010
By: anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com), August 16, 2010 2:10 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
AM (myname4rwt@jee-male.com) on 8/16/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>anon (anon@anon.com) on 8/14/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>So in summary, nobody has been able to come up with a credible paper proving these
>>fantastic 100x performance gains despite being absolutely certain the claims are real.
>
>In summary, claims that GPUs' perf advantage is limited to 2.5x-5x are complete
>and utter BS,
AM the claim, actually, is coming from the 100x-1000x people. People here are doubting that claim because of the numbers involved, but it is not up to them to disprove the 100x-1000x claims because they **do not have the code in question, or the GPUs in question**. How is this so hard for you to understand?
You must either have seen much better standard of proof than we have seen on this thread and are, for some reason, refusing to share it with us; or you must have made up your mind based on something other than facts. Which is it?
---------------------------
>anon (anon@anon.com) on 8/14/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>So in summary, nobody has been able to come up with a credible paper proving these
>>fantastic 100x performance gains despite being absolutely certain the claims are real.
>
>In summary, claims that GPUs' perf advantage is limited to 2.5x-5x are complete
>and utter BS,
AM the claim, actually, is coming from the 100x-1000x people. People here are doubting that claim because of the numbers involved, but it is not up to them to disprove the 100x-1000x claims because they **do not have the code in question, or the GPUs in question**. How is this so hard for you to understand?
You must either have seen much better standard of proof than we have seen on this thread and are, for some reason, refusing to share it with us; or you must have made up your mind based on something other than facts. Which is it?
