"Doom3 is up to 112% slower than the 6600GT"
- Nvidia PR doing the math. The X700 apparently renders at a negative framerate in Doom3.
More pages: 1 2
Wednesday, June 23, 2010 | Permalink

Via Rage3D I found this Nvidia blog post, which I found somewhat amusing. Although after a brief look at the actual paper I give Intel a bit more credit than the Nvidia spin of it. Still, even then, the Intel paper concludes that the previous generation GPU is 2.5x faster on average.

Anyway, I find the GPU vs. CPU war not so interesting, because my prediction is that we still need to have both paradigms around. No model is going to "win", so I don't think Intel needs to be so defensive, nor do I believe in Nvidia's prediction that "the piece of hardware that runs sequential code will shrink to a tiny dot swimming in an ocean of ALUs" (I forgot the exact wording, but something like that). I don't believe in Nvidia's prediction because of Amdahl's law. At least when speaking of games, there will always be some sort of critical path through the game update code where each step needs input from previous steps. So just slapping on more cores will not make things much faster and switching to the Larrabee model for CPUs is likely to make things slower even if you get an order of magnitude more raw throughput power. I believe the model for future CPUs is something like what the PS3 has, with one main CPU and 6 smaller throughput oriented SPUs. Even in the future we will need at least one, but preferably two or three cores optimized for quickly crunching through sequential code. Then a larger number of tiny throughput oriented cores next to it for parallel but fairly independent tasks. Then the GPU for graphics and a number of other embarrasingly parallel tasks. I don't think the GPU and CPU will meet anytime soon, although with more and more programmable GPUs and then stuff like Fusion I could imagine that the GPU and the SPUs might merge at some point, but I'm not convinced of that yet.



Enter the code below

Saturday, July 10, 2010

just look at the price of the PS3, they are now running a profit on the hardware.
meaning the cost to produce the cell is also the future, as u could just add more and more spe's without adding to cost.

the x86 future is completely cell like, if they don't ARM will take over.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

intel/amd are only intrested in the final production cost, and gpu's are too expensive to produce long-term while simple cell like chips aren't.

the best example of the CPU future is in Ati's GPU where they since the 3000 series they just doubled the transistor count but kept the overall cost-equal to the previous chip.

also eventually with SPE's u could add spe's to spe's, u can make the old PPU's the new SPE's and adding new SPE's to the older PPU unit reducing bus-load.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

GPU w/ CUDA(compute) is much, much faster than CPU. therefore, I like too GPU and high-end videocard. I buy new GeForce 2 GTX480's...
CPU will dead. :P

More pages: 1 2