By: Potatoswatter (potswa_m.delete@this.c.com), November 11, 2009 1:26 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Vincent Diepeveen (diep@xs4all.nl) on 11/11/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>Potatoswatter (potswa_m@c.com) on 11/11/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Vincent Diepeveen (diep@xs4all.nl) on 11/10/09 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>MoTheG (better@not.tell) on 11/9/09 wrote:
>>>---------------------------
>>>>a reader (a@b.c) on 11/9/09 wrote:
>>>>---------------------------
>>>>>stop blabbering.
>>>>>
>>>>>do you have access to GPU nda docs or not?
>>>>
>>>>I do not.
>>>>Does one have to?
>>>
>>>Yes of course,
>>
>>"Of course"? The point of any highly multithreaded machine is to shift the focus
>>from instruction latency to memory latency. NV gives a rough idea of the operations
>>and their latencies and a better idea of the memory architecture.
>
>Let's face it potatoswatter, the only successful software on GPU's right now has
>been programmed by NCSA type guys, be it the chinese organisation equivalent or
>the US version of it. Only those guys have lots of information that's not on the
>net, or have the tools and toys, and have them long before they ever got released.
>
>That's the reality.
>
>All other hard working amateurs at home, yes even total top coders, they all didn't
>manage to outperform quadcore hardware with ANY gpu; of course provided that their x86/x64 software was coded real well.
On what problem?
I generally agree with you. GPU hype is out of hand and SIMD+multicore is way underrated as a buzzword and an optimization platform.
But saying "0.2 IPC" without context is just as meaningless as their "200x speedup". On the face of it, NV doesn't claim (at least I'm not aware of a claim) their product to be suitable for problems where the number of threads is at all limited. IPC is a useless measure for an SMT multiprocessor designed to saturate an uncached memory channel. It's not a secret that full-width multiplication is slow, 0.25 IPC, on NV80. It's assumed that any developer accepts that and is prepared to fight it with ever-more threads.
As for the lack of successful CUDA programs, the learning curve to get them to work seems beyond all but the most tortured grad students. Then, the driver is too unstable and unfriendly for home use. Finally, serious development doesn't want to be tied to NV.
But on the other hand, the members of http://gpugrid.net would probably tell me to eat *my* words.
---------------------------
>Potatoswatter (potswa_m@c.com) on 11/11/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Vincent Diepeveen (diep@xs4all.nl) on 11/10/09 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>MoTheG (better@not.tell) on 11/9/09 wrote:
>>>---------------------------
>>>>a reader (a@b.c) on 11/9/09 wrote:
>>>>---------------------------
>>>>>stop blabbering.
>>>>>
>>>>>do you have access to GPU nda docs or not?
>>>>
>>>>I do not.
>>>>Does one have to?
>>>
>>>Yes of course,
>>
>>"Of course"? The point of any highly multithreaded machine is to shift the focus
>>from instruction latency to memory latency. NV gives a rough idea of the operations
>>and their latencies and a better idea of the memory architecture.
>
>Let's face it potatoswatter, the only successful software on GPU's right now has
>been programmed by NCSA type guys, be it the chinese organisation equivalent or
>the US version of it. Only those guys have lots of information that's not on the
>net, or have the tools and toys, and have them long before they ever got released.
>
>That's the reality.
>
>All other hard working amateurs at home, yes even total top coders, they all didn't
>manage to outperform quadcore hardware with ANY gpu; of course provided that their x86/x64 software was coded real well.
On what problem?
I generally agree with you. GPU hype is out of hand and SIMD+multicore is way underrated as a buzzword and an optimization platform.
But saying "0.2 IPC" without context is just as meaningless as their "200x speedup". On the face of it, NV doesn't claim (at least I'm not aware of a claim) their product to be suitable for problems where the number of threads is at all limited. IPC is a useless measure for an SMT multiprocessor designed to saturate an uncached memory channel. It's not a secret that full-width multiplication is slow, 0.25 IPC, on NV80. It's assumed that any developer accepts that and is prepared to fight it with ever-more threads.
As for the lack of successful CUDA programs, the learning curve to get them to work seems beyond all but the most tortured grad students. Then, the driver is too unstable and unfriendly for home use. Finally, serious development doesn't want to be tied to NV.
But on the other hand, the members of http://gpugrid.net would probably tell me to eat *my* words.
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Article: Computational Efficiency in Modern Processors by DK | MoTheG | 2009/11/08 07:02 AM |
Article: Computational Efficiency in Modern Processors by DK | none | 2009/11/08 07:15 AM |
Silverthorne and OoO vs. InOrd | MoTheG | 2009/11/08 07:22 AM |
Silverthorne and OoO vs. InOrd | David Kanter | 2009/11/08 04:11 PM |
Magical 100x speedups | AM | 2009/11/09 09:03 AM |
Magical 100x speedups | David Kanter | 2009/11/09 12:41 PM |
Magical 100x speedups | none | 2009/11/09 01:36 PM |
Magical speedups | David Kanter | 2009/11/09 03:24 PM |
Magical speedups | none | 2009/11/09 03:40 PM |
Hardware Specs | MS | 2009/11/09 05:49 PM |
44x faster than a single cpu core | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/11/10 08:17 AM |
Magical speedups | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/11/10 08:02 AM |
Xeon 130x speedup vs Xeon | Eric Bron | 2009/11/10 08:20 AM |
Magical 100x speedups | AM | 2009/11/10 10:42 AM |
Magical 100x speedups | Linus Torvalds | 2009/11/10 01:19 PM |
Mega speedups | AM | 2009/11/11 06:21 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | David Kanter | 2009/11/10 01:26 AM |
No speedups for CPUs for the general programming populace | MoTheG | 2009/11/10 05:26 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | ? | 2009/11/10 05:45 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | hobold | 2009/11/10 07:31 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/11/10 08:26 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | sylt | 2009/11/10 10:00 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | AM | 2009/11/10 10:47 AM |
GPU vs. CPU | MoTheG | 2009/11/09 11:30 AM |
GPU vs. CPU | a reader | 2009/11/09 07:58 PM |
ease of programming | MoTheG | 2009/11/09 11:45 PM |
yes for GPU programming you need non-public info | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/11/10 08:36 AM |
yes for GPU programming you need non-public info | Potatoswatter | 2009/11/11 08:06 AM |
yes for GPU programming you need non-public info | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/11/11 11:23 AM |
yes for GPU programming you need non-public info | Potatoswatter | 2009/11/11 01:26 PM |
Real businesses use GPGPU. | Jouni Osmala | 2009/11/11 11:00 PM |
GPU vs. CPU | ? | 2009/11/10 06:01 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | MoTheG | 2009/11/10 10:24 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | ? | 2009/11/11 01:11 AM |
you missread me | MoTheG | 2009/11/12 12:33 AM |
you missread me | ? | 2009/11/12 01:18 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Potatoswatter | 2009/11/11 08:22 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | ? | 2009/11/12 01:22 AM |
loose, not so orderly | MoTheG | 2009/11/12 12:47 PM |
loose, not so orderly | Potatoswatter | 2009/11/12 06:50 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | rwessel | 2009/11/12 01:01 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Gabriele Svelto | 2009/11/13 12:39 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | ? | 2009/11/13 01:14 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Gabriele Svelto | 2009/11/13 01:30 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | rwessel | 2009/11/13 01:24 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Michael S | 2009/11/14 01:08 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Gabriele Svelto | 2009/11/14 11:38 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Andi Kleen | 2009/11/15 01:19 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Michael S | 2009/11/15 01:58 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Eric Bron | 2009/11/15 02:25 AM |
/MP option | Eric Bron | 2009/11/15 02:33 AM |
/MP option | Paul | 2009/11/15 09:42 AM |
/MP option | Eric Bron | 2009/11/15 01:22 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | ? | 2009/11/15 03:13 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Michael S | 2009/11/15 05:14 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Eugene Nalimov | 2009/11/14 09:24 PM |
Atom point | AM | 2009/11/09 09:00 AM |
Atom TDP | David Kanter | 2009/11/09 12:48 PM |
Atom TDP | hobold | 2009/11/10 07:41 AM |
Atom TDP | AM | 2009/11/10 10:49 AM |