By: ? (0xe2.0x9a.0x9b.delete@this.gmail.com), November 10, 2009 5:01 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
MoTheG (better@not.tell) on 11/9/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 11/8/09 wrote:
>
>> Or caches for that matter.
>
>hm, but don't GPUs use caches just as well?
>
>> Many workloads are very difficult to parallelize or
>> vectorize with a compiler. Think GCC or most latency
>> sensitive applications.
>
>vectorisation will only be possible for certain media and science applications
>thus GPUs will continue to be only applicable to these. GPUs can react to the data
>nowerdays by going sequential. GCC itself should be parallizeable.
>For GCC I'm thinking parsing/IO could be a thread and many parts can be compiled
>seperatly just as I can precompile parts. Certainly no task for a GPU but many cores.
... it seems to me that you think you can just randomly join arbitrary words together to form a sentence and call the result a profound idea ...
Please stop doing it!
---------------------------
>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 11/8/09 wrote:
>
>> Or caches for that matter.
>
>hm, but don't GPUs use caches just as well?
>
>> Many workloads are very difficult to parallelize or
>> vectorize with a compiler. Think GCC or most latency
>> sensitive applications.
>
>vectorisation will only be possible for certain media and science applications
>thus GPUs will continue to be only applicable to these. GPUs can react to the data
>nowerdays by going sequential. GCC itself should be parallizeable.
>For GCC I'm thinking parsing/IO could be a thread and many parts can be compiled
>seperatly just as I can precompile parts. Certainly no task for a GPU but many cores.
... it seems to me that you think you can just randomly join arbitrary words together to form a sentence and call the result a profound idea ...
Please stop doing it!
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Article: Computational Efficiency in Modern Processors by DK | MoTheG | 2009/11/08 06:02 AM |
Article: Computational Efficiency in Modern Processors by DK | none | 2009/11/08 06:15 AM |
Silverthorne and OoO vs. InOrd | MoTheG | 2009/11/08 06:22 AM |
Silverthorne and OoO vs. InOrd | David Kanter | 2009/11/08 03:11 PM |
Magical 100x speedups | AM | 2009/11/09 08:03 AM |
Magical 100x speedups | David Kanter | 2009/11/09 11:41 AM |
Magical 100x speedups | none | 2009/11/09 12:36 PM |
Magical speedups | David Kanter | 2009/11/09 02:24 PM |
Magical speedups | none | 2009/11/09 02:40 PM |
Hardware Specs | MS | 2009/11/09 04:49 PM |
44x faster than a single cpu core | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/11/10 07:17 AM |
Magical speedups | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/11/10 07:02 AM |
Xeon 130x speedup vs Xeon | Eric Bron | 2009/11/10 07:20 AM |
Magical 100x speedups | AM | 2009/11/10 09:42 AM |
Magical 100x speedups | Linus Torvalds | 2009/11/10 12:19 PM |
Mega speedups | AM | 2009/11/11 05:21 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | David Kanter | 2009/11/10 12:26 AM |
No speedups for CPUs for the general programming populace | MoTheG | 2009/11/10 04:26 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | ? | 2009/11/10 04:45 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | hobold | 2009/11/10 06:31 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/11/10 07:26 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | sylt | 2009/11/10 09:00 AM |
Bogus 100x speedups | AM | 2009/11/10 09:47 AM |
GPU vs. CPU | MoTheG | 2009/11/09 10:30 AM |
GPU vs. CPU | a reader | 2009/11/09 06:58 PM |
ease of programming | MoTheG | 2009/11/09 10:45 PM |
yes for GPU programming you need non-public info | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/11/10 07:36 AM |
yes for GPU programming you need non-public info | Potatoswatter | 2009/11/11 07:06 AM |
yes for GPU programming you need non-public info | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/11/11 10:23 AM |
yes for GPU programming you need non-public info | Potatoswatter | 2009/11/11 12:26 PM |
Real businesses use GPGPU. | Jouni Osmala | 2009/11/11 10:00 PM |
GPU vs. CPU | ? | 2009/11/10 05:01 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | MoTheG | 2009/11/10 09:24 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | ? | 2009/11/11 12:11 AM |
you missread me | MoTheG | 2009/11/11 11:33 PM |
you missread me | ? | 2009/11/12 12:18 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Potatoswatter | 2009/11/11 07:22 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | ? | 2009/11/12 12:22 AM |
loose, not so orderly | MoTheG | 2009/11/12 11:47 AM |
loose, not so orderly | Potatoswatter | 2009/11/12 05:50 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | rwessel | 2009/11/12 12:01 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Gabriele Svelto | 2009/11/12 11:39 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | ? | 2009/11/13 12:14 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Gabriele Svelto | 2009/11/13 12:30 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | rwessel | 2009/11/13 12:24 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Michael S | 2009/11/14 12:08 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Gabriele Svelto | 2009/11/14 10:38 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Andi Kleen | 2009/11/15 12:19 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Michael S | 2009/11/15 12:58 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Eric Bron | 2009/11/15 01:25 AM |
/MP option | Eric Bron | 2009/11/15 01:33 AM |
/MP option | Paul | 2009/11/15 08:42 AM |
/MP option | Eric Bron | 2009/11/15 12:22 PM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | ? | 2009/11/15 02:13 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Michael S | 2009/11/15 04:14 AM |
2. try but most is said, just clarifying | Eugene Nalimov | 2009/11/14 08:24 PM |
Atom point | AM | 2009/11/09 08:00 AM |
Atom TDP | David Kanter | 2009/11/09 11:48 AM |
Atom TDP | hobold | 2009/11/10 06:41 AM |
Atom TDP | AM | 2009/11/10 09:49 AM |