The Arrival of TeraFLOP Computing - bit-tech.net Forums

Tim S · 30th Apr 2007, 15:01

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...mputing/1.html

DougEdey · 30th Apr 2007, 15:14

Why has graphics power advanced so much more then CPU?

BigM2006 · 30th Apr 2007, 15:23

maybe because most customers have been more graphics focused than CPU focused?

BioSniper · 30th Apr 2007, 15:31

That was one intense article which managed to loose me a bit towards the end due to its complexities but was still a good read none the less.
So what you are tying to say is that this new 80cpu array is intel's new graphics card?

Bluephoenix · 30th Apr 2007, 15:40

I think this is the reason we saw talk about having processors with an integrated GPU in the nehalem lineup. Also its interesting to speculate on what could be done with a stacked CPU-GPU combination (CPU as thread rounting; logic and math ops at amazing speed?)

even if the on die 'GPU' parts are not used for graphics they would be welcomed with open arms by those of us doing analysis work.

Vash-HT · 30th Apr 2007, 15:42

I didn't read through the article but I was surprised to see the picture of a USB DAQ card from National Instruments. It was kinda funny cause I was just looking up the pinout for a PXI-6508 like 15 minutes ago here at work lol, and then I come and see them using one for this.

Rocket733 · 30th Apr 2007, 16:46

Good read, I enjoy articles with a more technical focus and this certainly provided such. It's interesting how the computing world is moving back towards specialization for some tasks rather than integration.

Pookeyhead · 30th Apr 2007, 16:53

A pretty in-depth read, but a superb article.

With ref: to the previous posters comments about why graphics tech moves on faster than CPU, I agree.. it's comsumer led. Graphics cards are the Must Have thing for gamers, whereas you can get away with a CPU with less grunt.

Ramble · 30th Apr 2007, 16:59

Great article, I've been hoping for some more GPGPU stuff to come through (it'd be great if my gfx card auto encoded all my tv to divx or something).

The reason graphics cards are so far ahead was covered in the article somewhat. They're specialised, the 8800 only has to do pixel, vertex, geometry and physics processing. A processor has to do far more than that.

Also, we've been working around the limitations of x86 for a while now (x64 has fixed that somewhat) whereas a graphics card can change it's architecture massively every revision. CPUs are also slightly more memory starved than their GPU.

g3n3tiX · 30th Apr 2007, 17:40

And now GPUs use more power (electricity-wise) than CPUs so they have to justify themselves for the increased power consumption

I like the design of the motherboard and terascale processor, with wires everywhere, a lot of machines, reminds me of Pi (movie, Darren Aronovski)

Bluephoenix · 30th Apr 2007, 17:44

the absolute difference between GPUs and CPUs is that the latter are primarily logic opertation oriented and linear (hence why we call processes 'threads')

Fozzy · 30th Apr 2007, 17:54

Hmmm I wonder how fast of a graphics card one would need for physx? I'd love to throw in a 6600gt next to my 8800GTX SLI mad powerfhouse dream system

Ramble · 30th Apr 2007, 20:01

Any dx9c graphics card should be better than your processor so a 6600gt would probably be pretty good.

Kipman725 · 30th Apr 2007, 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougEdey

Why has graphics power advanced so much more then CPU?

it hasen't the cpu is a genral purpose proccessor which can do everything (including graphics very slowly) and the GPU is very fast at what it does but can only do very few tasks in comparison to a CPU. GPU computing isn't the be all and end all, alot of tasks run very much slower on a gpu to a cpu.

Tim S · 30th Apr 2007, 21:37

That's exactly right -- the GPU is a very powerful processor when code is written to take advantage of its massive parallelism. With very narrow code, or more generalised code, the CPU will run rings around the GPU.

TomH · 30th Apr 2007, 22:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by TFA

According to AMD, we'll see the first implementation of Havok FX this summer in a “massively anticipated title” (write your answers on a postcard and send them to... errr -- Ed).

Half Life 2: Episode 2!

ATi (AMD) have always been close to Valve. I'm sure the next time we'll see the current state of Episode 2 will in 3 months time. If you think, it leaves 3-4 months for the hype to brim up on the run up the "end of the year", when they plan to release, and then it'll be 'LOL physics kthnx$$$bai'.

They were pretty good getting Source updated and out with new tech too, eg. HDR, and indeed the physics in the original title were ground-breaking at the time.

It would also tie-in pretty well with the timing of their original delay announcement, and give a pretty good financial justification for it - look the money that could be made by both sides (sale of physics cards, and sale of the game to use them with.)

I think if you're going to push the bar on physics with games like Portal and whatever they might have planned for Episode 2 - you may just need some extra physics acceleration to get that extra 'wow'. Or not, but I'm sure Valve know good money when see it!

May be wrong, but it fits quite well

(I guess it could be Far Cry 2?

)

Bluephoenix · 1st May 2007, 00:22

anyone forgetting that Nvidia are a major backer of the Havok engine as well? (last I checked the G80 was purportedly designed to work with the engine as well as DX10)

pdemon · 1st May 2007, 01:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pookeyhead

A pretty in-depth read, but a superb article.

With ref: to the previous posters comments about why graphics tech moves on faster than CPU, I agree.. it's comsumer led. Graphics cards are the Must Have thing for gamers, whereas you can get away with a CPU with less grunt.

It is definitely consumer led; but the rapid pace of advancement follows and supports the evolution in game design. Gamers want their games to improve graphically, to some extent it justifies the purchase of a new game and as a result graphics tech can count on continued advancement at the software end ensuring the market for new cards.

Lazarus Dark · 1st May 2007, 11:50

why the insistance that "we will never, ever, ever see an 80 core cpu"? yes, yes, I get it, this is just a research project to see what they can do, but who's to say in 5 years or so they won't come out with a 40 core or 100 core? If the benifits are there and it looks to be good step forward for computing, then I'll be first in line to pick up my 60 cores. If the software can be optimized and there is a need for the computational ability, then I have no doubt we will see such processors.

[USRF]Obiwan · 1st May 2007, 13:03

Awesome article dudes!

PS: "We all know the game, It is just a lame excuse to get postcards from all over the world...'

30th Apr 2007, 15:01	#1
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	The Arrival of TeraFLOP Computing http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...mputing/1.html __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

30th Apr 2007, 15:14	#2
DougEdey I pwn all your storage Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Southampton Posts: 13,933	Why has graphics power advanced so much more then CPU? __________________ Burnout: Paradise Stats!XBL: DougEdey Bindi PSN ID: DougEdey Twitter

30th Apr 2007, 15:31	#4
BioSniper I Mod, Therefore I Own Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere in the south Posts: 3,462	That was one intense article which managed to loose me a bit towards the end due to its complexities but was still a good read none the less. So what you are tying to say is that this new 80cpu array is intel's new graphics card? __________________ My Flickr :: Bit-tech Flickr Wii: 1792 1527 2926 7945 :: Xbox Live: BioSnipr :: PSN: Biosnipr

30th Apr 2007, 16:53	#8
Pookeyhead It's Big, and It's Clever Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Blackpool Posts: 4,952	A pretty in-depth read, but a superb article. With ref: to the previous posters comments about why graphics tech moves on faster than CPU, I agree.. it's comsumer led. Graphics cards are the Must Have thing for gamers, whereas you can get away with a CPU with less grunt. __________________ Intel i7 920 @ 3.8GHz ¦¦ Asus P6T Deluxe ¦¦ 6Gb Corsair Dominator C8 ¦¦ XFX GTX295 ¦¦ 2x 1Tb Samsung F1 ¦¦ 1x Seagate 7200.11 1.5Tb ¦¦ Gigabyte Odin 800W PSU ¦¦ Dell 2405FPW.

30th Apr 2007, 16:59	#9
Ramble Ginger Nut Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Exeter, Devon/Wantage, Oxfordshire Posts: 5,235	Great article, I've been hoping for some more GPGPU stuff to come through (it'd be great if my gfx card auto encoded all my tv to divx or something). The reason graphics cards are so far ahead was covered in the article somewhat. They're specialised, the 8800 only has to do pixel, vertex, geometry and physics processing. A processor has to do far more than that. Also, we've been working around the limitations of x86 for a while now (x64 has fixed that somewhat) whereas a graphics card can change it's architecture massively every revision. CPUs are also slightly more memory starved than their GPU. __________________ Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky are beaming down to the planet. Guess who's not coming back.

30th Apr 2007, 15:23	#3
BigM2006 What's a Dremel? Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 16	maybe because most customers have been more graphics focused than CPU focused?

30th Apr 2007, 15:40	#5
Bluephoenix Spoon? What spoon? Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Daytona Beach, FL Posts: 936	I think this is the reason we saw talk about having processors with an integrated GPU in the nehalem lineup. Also its interesting to speculate on what could be done with a stacked CPU-GPU combination (CPU as thread rounting; logic and math ops at amazing speed?) even if the on die 'GPU' parts are not used for graphics they would be welcomed with open arms by those of us doing analysis work.

30th Apr 2007, 15:42	#6
Vash-HT Multimodder Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 193	I didn't read through the article but I was surprised to see the picture of a USB DAQ card from National Instruments. It was kinda funny cause I was just looking up the pinout for a PXI-6508 like 15 minutes ago here at work lol, and then I come and see them using one for this.

30th Apr 2007, 16:46	#7
Rocket733 Austerity - It's the only way Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 1,165	Good read, I enjoy articles with a more technical focus and this certainly provided such. It's interesting how the computing world is moving back towards specialization for some tasks rather than integration.

30th Apr 2007, 17:40	#10
g3n3tiX Resident frenchie Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: localhost Posts: 593	And now GPUs use more power (electricity-wise) than CPUs so they have to justify themselves for the increased power consumption I like the design of the motherboard and terascale processor, with wires everywhere, a lot of machines, reminds me of Pi (movie, Darren Aronovski) __________________ I also have a MTBF.

30th Apr 2007, 17:44	#11
Bluephoenix Spoon? What spoon? Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Daytona Beach, FL Posts: 936	the absolute difference between GPUs and CPUs is that the latter are primarily logic opertation oriented and linear (hence why we call processes 'threads')

30th Apr 2007, 17:54	#12
Fozzy Ultramodder Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Olympia, WA Posts: 1,386	Hmmm I wonder how fast of a graphics card one would need for physx? I'd love to throw in a 6600gt next to my 8800GTX SLI mad powerfhouse dream system __________________ Sponsors: http://www.koolance.com/images/homeimage01.jpg http://www.dangerden.com/templates/r...eader-wide.jpg http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/e...age00001-2.jpg

30th Apr 2007, 20:01	#13
Ramble Ginger Nut Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Exeter, Devon/Wantage, Oxfordshire Posts: 5,235	Any dx9c graphics card should be better than your processor so a 6600gt would probably be pretty good. __________________ Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky are beaming down to the planet. Guess who's not coming back.

30th Apr 2007, 21:37	#15
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	That's exactly right -- the GPU is a very powerful processor when code is written to take advantage of its massive parallelism. With very narrow code, or more generalised code, the CPU will run rings around the GPU. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

1st May 2007, 00:22	#17
Bluephoenix Spoon? What spoon? Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Daytona Beach, FL Posts: 936	anyone forgetting that Nvidia are a major backer of the Havok engine as well? (last I checked the G80 was purportedly designed to work with the engine as well as DX10)

1st May 2007, 11:50	#19
Lazarus Dark Supermodder Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: US Memphis, TN Posts: 292	why the insistance that "we will never, ever, ever see an 80 core cpu"? yes, yes, I get it, this is just a research project to see what they can do, but who's to say in 5 years or so they won't come out with a 40 core or 100 core? If the benifits are there and it looks to be good step forward for computing, then I'll be first in line to pick up my 60 cores. If the software can be optimized and there is a need for the computational ability, then I have no doubt we will see such processors. __________________ My gun kata is greater than your kung fu.

1st May 2007, 13:03	#20
[USRF]Obiwan Ultramodder Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 1,220	Awesome article dudes! PS: "We all know the game, It is just a lame excuse to get postcards from all over the world...' __________________ Mascleta: "The most accurate simulation of thunder, humans can simulate..." The answer is 42, so... whats the question again? If you know what 'Peek' and 'Poke' represents, then you are probably as old as me.