Why are GPUs increasing in performance so much faster than CPUs?

[cspj]

I'd like to get an idea of why intel processor speeds have only increased by about 30% over the last 4 years, but gpu performance has more than doubled?

 

[rcald2000]

I had no idea, so I googled it.

google query: why gpu is faster than cpu
google result: Why are GPUs more powerful than CPUs - Stack Overflow

One answer I found in a message thread was interesting:

GPUs are designed with one goal in mind: process graphics really fast. Since this is the only concern they have, there have been some specialized optimizations in place that allow for certain calculations to go a LOT faster than they would in a traditional processor.

In the case of password cracking (or the molecular dynamic "folding at home" project) what has happened is that programmers have found ways of leveraging these optimized processes to do things like crunch passwords at a faster rate.

Your standard CPU has to do a lot more different calculation and processing types that what graphics processors do, so they can't be optimized in a similar manner.


@cspj I'm aware that this doesn't directly answer your question, but I still think it's pertinent.

 

[cspj]

I had no idea, so I googled it.

@cspj I'm aware that this doesn't directly answer your question, but I still think it's pertinent.

Yes, I found that on google too, but as you mention, their absolute speed is a different issue than their speed of improvement, which is what I am interested in. Thanks though.

 

[ikissfutebol]

Well GPUs are still the most likely bottleneck. I would think that means GPUs were further behind in terms of lots of things. For a while, GPUs were merely supplemental resources while CPUs were still gaining speed. When you consider the average store bought PC likely has Intel integrated graphics (they do technically dominate in GPU market share), it kind of makes sense if GPUs as a whole are increasing in speed so much faster. Pre-tablet craze, Intel CPUs were either fast and used a bit of power or were super weak and didn't use tons of power. In neither case were you really really playing more than solitaire. Tablet craze and now desktop class gaming CPUs are under 100 W, nearly half that. The integrated Intel options aren't totally terrible and you can actually play many games if you turn the settings down a little.

 

[imrazor]

Intel has been primarily concerned with competing in the mobile market (laptops, etc.), rather than pushing forward desktop performance. So that means low power consumption has been their primary focus, not high performance desktop chips.

 

[RobCrezz]

1) Requirement, there is a constant need for faster GPUS, for CPUs the focus is more on performance per watt.
2)Size - the 980 ti has 8Billion transistors, the i7 6700k has around 3.3B (where about half are uses for the IGPU).

 

[cspj]

Well GPUs are still the most likely bottleneck. I would think that means GPUs were further behind in terms of lots of things. For a while, GPUs were merely supplemental resources while CPUs were still gaining speed. When you consider the average store bought PC likely has Intel integrated graphics (they do technically dominate in GPU market share), it kind of makes sense if GPUs as a whole are increasing in speed so much faster. Pre-tablet craze, Intel CPUs were either fast and used a bit of power or were super weak and didn't use tons of power. In neither case were you really really playing more than solitaire. Tablet craze and now desktop class gaming CPUs are under 100 W, nearly half that. The integrated Intel options aren't totally terrible and you can actually play many games if you turn the settings down a little.

So it sounds like you are outlining two main factors, the first being that CPUs have been in development longer and are therefore more refined and efficient, and the second, that Intel has been ignoring desktop power users because it isn't as potentially profitable as small dies. Is this correct?

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Less competition in the CPUs, and we are getting close to limits of silicon. Cannonlake will be 10nm. Once transistors get too thin, weird crap starts happening like electron tunneling, and it's going to take Intel and AMD a lot of research on figuring out how to improve performance without making things smaller. Transistors are, after all, made of atoms.

 

[17seconds]

Yeah, I would say competition and technology needs. The GPU market is more competitive between AMD and Nvidia, than the CPU market between AMD and Intel.

But then there are the applications as well. PC gaming graphics are constantly improving by leaps and bounds within a very lucrative entertainment business that relies upon innovation. CPUs on the other hand are only being pushed by mundane tasks, like booting up your operating system, surfing the web, and opening e-mails. No need to go nuclear to get those simple tasks done quickly.