Article: Parallelism at HotPar 2010
By: Anon (no.delete@this.thanks.com), August 22, 2010 10:43 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Steve Underwood (steevu@coppice.org) on 8/22/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>hobold (hobold@vectorizer.org) on 8/19/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Steve Underwood (steveu@coppice.org) on 8/18/10 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>[...]
>>>It took a lot of time for people to get the best out of hand shuffling
>>>things with SSSE3, and the next generation core made this complexity something that
>>>needs to be ripped out of the code. AAAHHHHH!
>>>
>>
>>http://www.khronos.org/developers/library/2010_siggraph_bof_opencl/OpenCL-BOF-Intel-SIGGRAPH-Jul10.pdf
This starts to show where NVidia (for all their faults) has been pushing hard - they already have reasonably OpenCL and other compilers targeting deep/wide systems.
Intel are going there also, which is of course a great thing.
It does however look to me like Intel is playing the same game people seem incensed at NVidia for doing here, unless I have missed something their base C implementation is running single threaded on a single core, versus 4/8 SMD units for their OpenCL version..
In some ways I agree with that view as part of the 'job' is parallelising the implementation, and OpenCL makes that easier (that C) (once you get around to understanding it..).
However, people jumped all over that view with the NVidia comparisons.. so I guess it applies here also.
But again, it is really a non-optimised C versus an optimised SSE/Threaded implementation.
IMHO this is EXACTLY the direction things will take over the next few years, when added to non-SMP and tightly connected coprocessors (to avoid anyones particular terminology). I am very happy that Intel is pushing also in these areas, and it should be obvious to most where they will lead in a few years if they really run with it.
---------------------------
>hobold (hobold@vectorizer.org) on 8/19/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Steve Underwood (steveu@coppice.org) on 8/18/10 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>[...]
>>>It took a lot of time for people to get the best out of hand shuffling
>>>things with SSSE3, and the next generation core made this complexity something that
>>>needs to be ripped out of the code. AAAHHHHH!
>>>
>>
>>http://www.khronos.org/developers/library/2010_siggraph_bof_opencl/OpenCL-BOF-Intel-SIGGRAPH-Jul10.pdf
This starts to show where NVidia (for all their faults) has been pushing hard - they already have reasonably OpenCL and other compilers targeting deep/wide systems.
Intel are going there also, which is of course a great thing.
It does however look to me like Intel is playing the same game people seem incensed at NVidia for doing here, unless I have missed something their base C implementation is running single threaded on a single core, versus 4/8 SMD units for their OpenCL version..
In some ways I agree with that view as part of the 'job' is parallelising the implementation, and OpenCL makes that easier (that C) (once you get around to understanding it..).
However, people jumped all over that view with the NVidia comparisons.. so I guess it applies here also.
But again, it is really a non-optimised C versus an optimised SSE/Threaded implementation.
IMHO this is EXACTLY the direction things will take over the next few years, when added to non-SMP and tightly connected coprocessors (to avoid anyones particular terminology). I am very happy that Intel is pushing also in these areas, and it should be obvious to most where they will lead in a few years if they really run with it.