>>I got an even better reality check for you: tell me the SPECint and SPECfp.
>>
>>I have yet to see GPGPU work well for problems that aren't parallel math.
>>
>>Like uhm, you know... the bulk of the code that people are dealing with.
>
>You should probably read at least a few posts up the thread before posting. The claims made were
>
>a) reported 100x [and above] speedups are crap (Kanter).
>
>b) *real* performance advantage of GPUs is 2.5x-5x if compared against well-optimized CPU code (Mark Roulo).
>
>While both *may* be true indeed (very easily for codes utilizing a very small portion
>of GPU's hw), both are infinetely far from being a universal truth.

Hence my suggestion w.r.t. SPECint and SPECfp.

If GPGPUs pride themselves with the GP part, then they need to demonstrate
actual GP performance rather than just parallel math performance.

IMO they haven't so far... and won't, ever.