Nvidia to Hit the x86 CPUs With CUDA Capability

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Whats the point of CUDA without a GPU? Multi core or not.
Click to expand...

Well now you can run CUDA code WITHOUT the need for a Nvidia graphics card and will also allow them to compete with OpenCL and Directcompute.

And maybe it's cheaper to use what you have already (example in this case, a Supercomputer with say.. 100 CPU's), and would be cheaper to simply use those 100 CPU's instead of spending more cash on GPU's.

it's all in the text.
 
They've got the best hardware, now they need the whole software community to be able to lend a helping hand. It's okay, they plan to have a GPU that can run without a CPU two steps ahead. A greater CUDA crowd will be beneficial.
 
[citation][nom]joytech22[/nom] allow them to compete with OpenCL and Directcompute.[/citation]

Except that OpenCL and Directcompute are compatible with all GPUs. CUDA is useless without GPU acceleration.
 
Well now you can run CUDA code WITHOUT the need for a Nvidia graphics card and will also allow them to compete with OpenCL and Directcompute. Think about it.. it's all in the text.
Click to expand...

CUDA was toted as being nvidias answer to give exceptional processing power over x86 after Jen-Hsun Huang bashed it for so long.

Now that port THERE pride and joy to the thing they bagged for so long?
 
What i meant was, (When) CUDA is (now) supported on CPU's as well as GPU's it allows more people to use the language without the need to spend thousands, it's just a money saver for some and allows others to mess around with CUDA without needing strict requirements, it should work, just not as fast.
 
[citation][nom]joytech22[/nom]Well now you can run CUDA code WITHOUT the need for a Nvidia graphics card and will also allow them to compete with OpenCL and Directcompute.And maybe it's cheaper to use what you have already (example in this case, a Supercomputer with say.. 100 CPU's), and would be cheaper to simply use those 100 CPU's instead of spending more cash on GPU's.it's all in the text.[/citation]

4chan made something called tripper for cuda. it runds tripcodes in cuda, arguably the best way to get trip codes you want. now a single core cpu can do i believe 1-5 million trips a second, an i7 920 can do i think 22 million, a gtx285 is capable of almost 2 billion and if its not faked i have seen numbers up to 15 billion but i know for a fact that this is the BEST use of the gpu in practice as a gpgpu. without gou slow, with gpu fast.

point being that 100cpus are outdone by a quad sli, if you have the ability to get 100cpus, just get 4 cpus.
 
For a developer this is good news, instead of a platform specific use it can be deployed everywhere rather than just on nvidia gpu's. Hardware wise its also a great idea, accelerate the code if you want to by adding a gpu, if not it will run but not at peek performance!
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]4chan made something called tripper for cuda. it runds tripcodes in cuda, arguably the best way to get trip codes you want. now a single core cpu can do i believe 1-5 million trips a second, an i7 920 can do i think 22 million, a gtx285 is capable of almost 2 billion and if its not faked i have seen numbers up to 15 billion but i know for a fact that this is the BEST use of the gpu in practice as a gpgpu. without gou slow, with gpu fast. point being that 100cpus are outdone by a quad sli, if you have the ability to get 100cpus, just get 4 cpus.[/citation]

But it says CPU's with CUDA capability.... I'm not getting it.

If it's faster on the CPU, it renders the GPU pointless.

If it's slower on the CPU, why use it?
 
[citation][nom]stridervm[/nom]But it says CPU's with CUDA capability.... I'm not getting it.If it's faster on the CPU, it renders the GPU pointless.If it's slower on the CPU, why use it?[/citation]

exactly my point, for the cpu we can use normal code, and either Microsoft or opencl and get all gpus to help. it still makes cuda over all pointless.
 
[citation][nom]bmadd[/nom]Whats the point of CUDA without a GPU? Multi core or not.[/citation]

OpenCL is meant to make programming parallel programs easier, whether that means a graphics card or a bunch of traditional processors. I'd imagine that nVidia is looking to compete with that model now, rather than focusing only on programming parallel programs for graphics cards.
 
[citation][nom]bmadd[/nom]Whats the point of CUDA without a GPU? Multi core or not.[/citation]

So you are not programming 2 ways in 1 application to add the CPU's power to the raw CUDA crunching.

It's also a way to learn CUDA without needing Nvidia hardware or a way to develop apps without needing Nvidia hardware. (I would assume you would deploy the finished app to CUDA hardware though)

OpenCL is owned by apple.
Honestly I trust Nvidia more from a "Nazi control freak over our IP" perspective.
 
[citation][nom]Enzo Matrix[/nom]You're thinking of PhysX. Wrong pun.[/citation]
Actually, I was thinking of nVidia's practice of not getting along. Disabling features would be consistent with their past practices of doing that (e.g. with PhysX, as you point out) if certain competitors' equipment is in your system.
 
[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]Hmmmm I hope that it will run on IA64.[/citation]

Do you still use IA64? I remember that netburst era stuff was awful on cpu intensive workloads. Hell, I can`t even find the ia64 version of 2003 server anymore.
 
I would like to see this mean proper cpu optimizations for physx so you do not need a gpu to run it efficiently. Like getting it off the ancient x86 instructions and running it using the much faster SSE properly
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom