AM (myname4rwt@jee-male.com) on 8/18/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>Michael S (already5chosen@yahoo.com) on 8/17/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>AM (myname4rwt@jee-male.com) on 8/17/10 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>anon (anon@anon.com) on 8/16/10 wrote:
>>>---------------------------
>>>>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
>>>
>>>As a matter of fact, some people here (to be precise, Mark Roulo) asserted that
>>>the "real" perf advantage of GPUs over CPUs is 2.5x-5x. Hence my suggestion to him
>>>(and David Kanter wrt his own statements) to show how can it possibly be true with
>>>a selection of papers as small as 10. Haven't seen anyone of them in the thread since.
>>
>>I'd like to hear what is your own claim?
>>Say, on CPU side i5-760 (4 cores, 2.8 GHz, 8MB L3, no HT, official price=$205),
>>multithreaded , SIMD-optimized (not by compiler).
>
>If we allow hand optimization for the CPU, it's obvious that the same should apply
>to the GPU side. Or rely on compiler in both cases.
>

No, we should rely on effort comparison (developer time). The time spent on tuning with CUDA or OpenCL to get something interesting can also be spent on the CPU side. If it takes assembler or intrinsics or compiler magic is irrelevant.

...
[snip]