Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> 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?

Because it first got its hype from the games industry with the explicit goal for
graphics.  I'm sure you're aware of that.

AMD bought ATI and ATI cards are not innovating anymore.  They realize since
they can't compete with NVidia, better to just try to crap all over their plans
for worldwide domination.

In any case, CUDA may be a bad proprietary solution, but OpenCl is proving
already that there's some potential there for fast, homogeneous parallel
computing in hybrid CPU/GPU environments:

http://vimeo.com/8141489

Post a reply to this message