Cazalan and
gamerk316, all current products that you can purchase in stores have some research behind. In the concrete case of exascale compute, the research is being transfered to products that you can purchase. I already mentioned that the AMD original research was based about FSA, which is the precursor of the HSA shipping with Kaveri today. The Nvidia original design included ARM custom cores and Nvidia will be shipping Denver this year. Intel results of research will start appearing in the next Xeon Phi.
noob2222 Read what I wrote. I repeat: I have obtained the IPC increase from taking "the CPU benchmarks". Gaming at 1080p and high-settings is not a CPU benchmark, gamming at 720p and low settings is. See this graph.
Search "CPU benchmark" in its head, now see the resolution. See the 720p? See the low-settings? Now stops your ridiculous and perpetual attacks against me.
Ranth, I am not sure if we speak the same idiom. A principle doesn't fixes problems. A principle is not a thing made to fix anything, but a general rule of Nature. I am having difficulties to understand from where you got that "the principle of locality will fix all problems with thermal-density".
The research started years ago, but it is not finished. E.g. the needed memory technology is not still ready. There is no still any exascale level supercomputer. I said that the products are scheduled for the year 2018 or so. Therefore, you cannot see any of this in a high-end server today. Again I don't understand why you are asking me about this.
I believe that you are contradicting yourself. You first stated your belief that a discrete GPU is always more powerfull than an APU and then you claim now that Nvidia and AMD are migrating to APU because cannot compete with Intel? Nvidia is already developing a CPU to compete with Intel Xeons. Then why don't release discrete GPUs for exascale? I will say you why, neither Nvidia nor AMD are developing GPUS for their respective exascale projects, because the engineers know that at the exascale level an APU is much more powerfull than a discrete GPU. The reason? I said it before. At exascale level the principle of locality holds. In fact, I can give you even the order of magnitude identified in the research. At exascale level an APU is about 10x more powerfull than a CPU+dGPU. Or said otherwise, a CPU+dGPU with a performance similar to the APUs designed by AMD and Nvidia (20--40TFLOPS) would consume about 10x more power. This is what experts in exascale call the "power wall".
Let me repeat you the same questions that you left unaswered: do you believe that all the engineers from AMD, Nvidia, Cray... are selecting APUs for exascale supercomputer because they don't know that a CPU+dGPU is better? Or do you believe that all the engineers from AMD, Nvidia, Cray... are selecting APUs for exascale supercomputer because they know that a CPU+dGPU doesn't work at that scale?
I asked these questions to you because (your own words) "I just do not believe you". I did, because I suppose that you will agree that all the scientists and engineers working in developing the next exascale supercomputer know a bit the topic.
I am planning to write an article about how an ultra-high-performance level APU would look. I think that I will write a section explaining why a CPU+dGPU cannot achieve the same performance level. If you can wait a bit I would like to write a draft for review it and use your feedback to explain things better.
Yes, I can give you a link to Intel migrating from discrete card to 'APU' (Note that Intel calls CPUs to its APUs)