If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Shaping the future of visual computing (Larrabee)
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Shaping the future of visual computing (Larrabee)
"parallax-scroll" wrote in message
... http://software.intel.com/sites/bill...ture-of-va.php That website doesn't make it clear whether Intel's efforts will slow down medical research by decreasing the percentage of all video boards which are Nvidia boards now usable to support the few BOINC projects which are able to use video boards to do some types of computer work faster than CPUs can do it, or whether Intel plans to eventually speed up medical research by offering software that makes it easier to write programs that run on video boards using Intel's video chips but are doing things unrelated to producing graphics. http://www.gpugrid.net/ Robert Miles |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Shaping the future of visual computing (Larrabee)
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 22:47:22 -0500, "Robert Miles"
wrote: "parallax-scroll" wrote in message ... http://software.intel.com/sites/bill...ture-of-va.php That website doesn't make it clear whether Intel's efforts will slow down medical research by decreasing the percentage of all video boards which are Nvidia boards now usable to support the few BOINC projects which are able to use video boards to do some types of computer work faster than CPUs can do it, or whether Intel plans to eventually speed up medical research by offering software that makes it easier to write programs that run on video boards using Intel's video chips but are doing things unrelated to producing graphics. One sentence. Bet you can't say it without breathing. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Shaping the future of visual computing (Larrabee)
On Apr 8, 11:47*pm, "Robert Miles"
wrote: "parallax-scroll" wrote in message ... http://software.intel.com/sites/bill...ng-the-future-... That website doesn't make it clear whether Intel's efforts will slow down medical research by decreasing the percentage of all video boards which are Nvidia boards now usable to support the few BOINC projects which are able to use video boards to do some types of computer work faster than CPUs can do it, or whether Intel plans to eventually speed up medical research by offering software that makes it easier to write programs that run on video boards using Intel's video chips but are doing things unrelated to producing graphics. http://www.gpugrid.net/ It's a safe bet that Intel, just like IBM, is interested in any high- profile application that will get them more visibility. This chip is aimed at many markets, including HPC and other applications in science and engineering. Graphics just happens to be the easiest to make a business case for. Robert. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Shaping the future of visual computing (Larrabee)
Robert Miles wrote:
"parallax-scroll" wrote in message ... http://software.intel.com/sites/bill...ture-of-va.php That website doesn't make it clear whether Intel's efforts will slow down medical research by decreasing the percentage of all video boards which are Nvidia boards now usable to support the few BOINC projects which are able to use video boards to do some types of computer work faster than CPUs can do it, or whether Intel plans to eventually speed up medical research by offering software that makes it easier to write programs that run on video boards using Intel's video chips but are doing things unrelated to producing graphics. http://www.gpugrid.net/ Robert Miles There's another development happening, based around the OpenCL standards. AMD just recently showed gaming physics demo based around both Havoc and OpenCL. Though this is based around gaming applications, OpenCL is more general purpose than that. Yousuf Khan ATI ends the physics argument - The Inquirer "Don't underestimate how big a deal this is, however. As soon as it is optimised correctly, you can parse the physics load between the CPU and GPU. If you have more of one than the other, you can still use physics in the way it was meant to be played. Oops, wrong slogan... but this implementation should actually do what the other side promises. The upshot is that game developers can use physics more liberally, they don't have to worry about minimum specs as much." http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...ysics-argument |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Shaping the future of visual computing (Larrabee)
On Apr 9, 7:50*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Robert Miles wrote: "parallax-scroll" wrote in message .... http://software.intel.com/sites/bill...ng-the-future-.... That website doesn't make it clear whether Intel's efforts will slow down medical research by decreasing the percentage of all video boards which are Nvidia boards now usable to support the few BOINC projects which are able to use video boards to do some types of computer work faster than CPUs can do it, or whether Intel plans to eventually speed up medical research by offering software that makes it easier to write programs that run on video boards using Intel's video chips but are doing things unrelated to producing graphics. http://www.gpugrid.net/ Robert Miles There's another development happening, based around the OpenCL standards. AMD just recently showed gaming physics demo based around both Havoc and OpenCL. Though this is based around gaming applications, OpenCL is more general purpose than that. A better link to OpenCL without the Inquirer's usual slant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL People who write to specific platforms will always have to count on the continued availability and competitiveness of the platform. x86 is number one in both of those categories, and it's the only plausible candidate to ride out the microprocessor revolution. I'd bet on it again at this point. Robert. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Shaping the future of visual computing (Larrabee)
Robert Myers wrote:
People who write to specific platforms will always have to count on the continued availability and competitiveness of the platform. x86 is number one in both of those categories, and it's the only plausible candidate to ride out the microprocessor revolution. I'd bet on it again at this point. What changed your mind? I thought Itanium was the only way to go, according to you? Yousuf Khan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Shaping the future of visual computing (Larrabee)
On Apr 10, 12:16*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Robert Myers wrote: People who write to specific platforms will always have to count on the continued availability and competitiveness of the platform. *x86 is number one in both of those categories, and it's the only plausible candidate to ride out the microprocessor revolution. *I'd bet on it again at this point. What changed your mind? I thought Itanium was the only way to go, according to you? I hope Itanium isn't the new Rambus--the thing you bring up when you want to start a flame war. Robert. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Shaping the future of visual computing (Larrabee)
Robert Myers wrote:
On Apr 10, 12:16 am, Yousuf Khan wrote: Robert Myers wrote: People who write to specific platforms will always have to count on the continued availability and competitiveness of the platform. x86 is number one in both of those categories, and it's the only plausible candidate to ride out the microprocessor revolution. I'd bet on it again at this point. What changed your mind? I thought Itanium was the only way to go, according to you? I hope Itanium isn't the new Rambus--the thing you bring up when you want to start a flame war. Not at all, I've been convinced about x86 being here to stay for a long time, while you have not. It's a legitimate question. Regardless, OpenCL seems to promise a very flexible future, where you split up workloads between all kinds of devices and not worry about what they are. Yousuf Khan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Shaping the future of visual computing (Larrabee)
On Apr 10, 3:07*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Robert Myers wrote: On Apr 10, 12:16 am, Yousuf Khan wrote: Robert Myers wrote: People who write to specific platforms will always have to count on the continued availability and competitiveness of the platform. *x86 is number one in both of those categories, and it's the only plausible candidate to ride out the microprocessor revolution. *I'd bet on it again at this point. What changed your mind? I thought Itanium was the only way to go, according to you? I hope Itanium isn't the new Rambus--the thing you bring up when you want to start a flame war. Not at all, I've been convinced about x86 being here to stay for a long time, while you have not. It's a legitimate question. I"ve been around a long time. I've gotten some things right and some things wrong. Regardless, OpenCL seems to promise a very flexible future, where you split up workloads between all kinds of devices and not worry about what they are. I'm skeptical of most meta-software. The world is a blizzard of languages and API's, and software just gets to be more and more of a mess. There's always some new whiz-bang thing that's going to save the planet, or at least the industry. Robert. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel's Larrabee Shaping Up For Next-Gen Xbox, PS4 Consoles ? | NV55 | Intel | 2 | August 15th 08 10:35 PM |
GPU Computing: Intel's Larrabee - AMD's Fusion - NVIDIA's Tesla + CUDA | NV55 | Intel | 0 | October 31st 07 12:21 AM |
GPU Computing: Intel's Larrabee - AMD's Fusion - NVIDIA's Tesla + CUDA | NV55 | AMD x86-64 Processors | 0 | October 31st 07 12:21 AM |
GPU Computing: Intel's Larrabee - AMD's Fusion - NVIDIA's Tesla + CUDA | NV55 | Nvidia Videocards | 0 | October 31st 07 12:21 AM |