|
 |
On 29-12-2009 14:31, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
>> CPU = IPU (Integer processor, which does the stuff that most processors,
>> prior to adding in-built FPUs did. I.e., execute code, but *not* do any
>> math.). Multiple IPUs. FPU - <none>. GPU - Integrated into CPU, and
>> replacing all functions of the FPU in the process.
>
>> They figure that this, even without changing die sizes, will garner an
>> 80% increase in speed, since all FPU functions get dumped, not to a
>> separate FPU for each core, but to how ever many of the 128+ "pipes" in
>> the GPU. Since Cuda is supposed to be a way to "program" a GPU... What
>> happens if you don't need to do that any more, but can just drop your
>> "code" into an IPU, and have it use the GPU pipes to do its math? Seems
>> to me it makes "programming" the GPU at all kind of redundant. :p
>
> Why is it even called a GPU? How is it related to graphics? It sounds more
> like a parallelized math coprocessor, not unlike SSE.
>
Or like a GPU with some added clue, whichever way you want to look at it.
BTW I don't seem to be able to find any references for this claim. Some
indications that AMD was thinking in this way in 2007 or even 2006. So
if Patrick (or anybody else) could come up with a relevant reference we
might be able to judge what is going on and if it is really an innovation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
