I will take this chip... AND EAT IT!!!

[Psumi]

... in light of a post in the Intel graphics thread, I would like to learn more about the difference between GPUs and CPUs and discuss everything about them.

First off, since GPUs aren't the same as CPUs, as referenced in the Intel thread... how do we compare them to one another in the form of processing power? Also, can someone explain to me why my 32-bit processor tastes like plain and greasy while my 64-bit chip tastes baked and good?

[NCLI]

Yagami-kun?

Anyway, IIRC, GPUs are amazing at running many specialized processes simultaneously, while the CPU is fairly good with anything you throw at it.

[Psumi]

Yagami-kun?

Anyway, IIRC, GPUs are amazing at running many specialized processes simultaneously, while the CPU is fairly good with anything you throw at it.

You'd think it would be that the CPU would be only good at what its name suggests: processing.

Which leads me to believe, will the GPU be merged into some form of Super-CPU?

Oh wait, they did that already, with the PS2's Emotion Engine and Graphics Synth.

[NCLI]

You'd think it would be that the CPU would be only good at what its name suggests: processing.

Which leads me to believe, will the GPU be merged into some form of Super-CPU?

Oh wait, they did that already, with the PS2's Emotion Engine and Graphics Synth.

That is what both Intel, AMD and nVidia are working towards, and it may very well fuse back into one chip in the future.

[Psumi]

That is what both Intel, AMD and nVidia are working towards, and it may very well fuse back into one chip in the future.

That won't be good for ATI then. :D

[swoll1980]

edit
I mis read the op.

[swoll1980]

Also, can someone explain to me why my 32-bit processor tastes like plain and greasy while my 64-bit chip tastes baked and good?

The only real difference your going to notice with 64 bit is the memory addressing capabilities.

[whiskeylover]

The only real difference your going to notice with 64 bit is the memory addressing capabilities.

Unless you use Franks Red Hot sauce.

[NCLI]

That won't be good for ATI then. :D
ATi is owned by AMD now ;)

Unless you use Franks Red Hot sauce.

I couldn't taste anything for three days after I tried that thing!

[Psumi]

Unless you use Franks Red Hot sauce.

How much does that upgrade cost? :D

[NCLI]

How much does that upgrade cost? :D

Don't do it!!

That won't be good for ATI then. :D
ATI is owned by AMD now ;)

[swoll1980]

I couldn't taste anything for three days after I tried that thing!

I've gotten so immune to hot sauce I can't even feel it anymore. I'm currently using Mike's Insanity Sauce which is made with habanero peppers. At first it was a little hot, but now it's like vinegar. Other people put a drop on their tongue, and wished they were dead. Time for me to find something hotter.

[alexfish]

That won't be good for ATI then. :D


Hi

A little bit of reading , also try cuda for linux it will put you in good stead for the future

Hybrid solutions

This newer class of GPUs competes with integrated graphics in the low-end desktop and notebook markets. The most common implementations of this are ATI's HyperMemory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperMemory) and NVIDIA's TurboCache (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TurboCache). Hybrid graphics cards are somewhat more expensive than integrated graphics, but much less expensive than dedicated graphics cards. These share memory with the system and have a small dedicated memory cache, to make up for the high latency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_latency) of the system RAM. Technologies within PCI Express can make this possible. While these solutions are sometimes advertised as having as much as 768MB of RAM, this refers to how much can be shared with the system memory.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graphics_processing_unit&action=edit&section=15)] Stream Processing and General Purpose GPUs (GPGPU)

Main articles: GPGPU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPGPU) and Stream processing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_processing)
A new concept is to use a general purpose graphics processing unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPGPU) as a modified form of stream processor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_processing). This concept turns the massive floating-point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating-point) computational power of a modern graphics accelerator's shader pipeline into general-purpose computing power, as opposed to being hard wired solely to do graphical operations. In certain applications requiring massive vector operations, this can yield several orders of magnitude higher performance than a conventional CPU. The two largest discrete (see "Dedicated graphics cards" above) GPU designers, ATI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies) and NVIDIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NVIDIA), are beginning to pursue this new approach with an array of applications. Both nVidia and ATI have teamed with Stanford University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University) to create a GPU-based client for the Folding@Home (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding@Home) distributed computing project, for protein folding calculations. In certain circumstances the GPU calculates forty times faster than the conventional CPUs traditionally used by such applications.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit#cite_note-9)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit#cite_note-10)
Recently NVidia began releasing cards supporting an API extension to the C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_%28programming_language%29) programming language CUDA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA) ("Compute Unified Device Architecture"), which allows specified functions from a normal C program to run on the GPU's stream processors. This makes C programs capable of taking advantage of a GPU's ability to operate on large matrices in parallel, while still making use of the CPU when appropriate. CUDA is also the first API to allow CPU-based applications to access directly the resources of a GPU for more general purpose computing without the limitations of using a graphics API.
Since 2005 there has been interest in using the performance offered by GPUs for evolutionary computation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation) in general, and for accelerating the fitness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28genetic_algorithm%29) evaluation in genetic programming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming) in particular. There is a short introduction on pages 90–92 of A Field Guide To Genetic Programming. Most approaches compile linear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_genetic_programming) or tree programs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming) on the host PC and transfer the executable to the GPU to be run. Typically the performance advantage is only obtained by running the single active program simultaneously on many example problems in parallel, using the GPU's SIMD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIMD) architecture[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit#cite_note-11)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit#cite_note-12). However, substantial acceleration can also be obtained by not compiling the programs, and instead transferring them to the GPU, to be interpreted there[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit#cite_note-13)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit#cite_note-14). Acceleration can then be obtained by either interpreting multiple programs simultaneously, simultaneously running multiple example problems, or combinations of both. A modern GPU (e.g. 8800 GTX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_8_Series) or later) can readily simultaneously interpret hundreds of thousands of very small programs.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit

Regards


alexfish

[Phrea]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0udMBdo0Rac

[Post Monkeh]

You'd think it would be that the CPU would be only good at what its name suggests: processing.

Which leads me to believe, will the GPU be merged into some form of Super-CPU?

Oh wait, they did that already, with the PS2's Emotion Engine and Graphics Synth.

i'm pretty sure the gpu does some processing as well.

[_h_]

Thread title is misleading and false advertising. I thought it was something about a potato chip, but was sadly disappointed by the mislead. :(

[Psumi]

Thread title is misleading and false advertising. I thought it was something about a potato chip, but was sadly disappointed by the mislead. :(

Read last sentence of the op.

[markbuntu]

GPUs have more flavor because of their multiple stream processors which provide for more flavor and a very nuanced taste experience. The new ones are especially tasty, They have 600+ floating point stream processors and are best experienced with the very best vintage wines.

CPUs with a measly 4 to 16 streams are just tasteless bulk food, like tofu. They need a decent dose of Franks, or half a bottle of Sriracha. Best paired with the cheapest beer you can find.

[NightwishFan]

I assumed Death Note when I saw the title as well. Epic line, his Japanese voice actor goes all out.

[dragos240]

I assumed Death Note when I saw the title as well. Epic line, his Japanese voice actor goes all out.

The English dub version is more famous for this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaoy1QKxGQs) particular line.

[NightwishFan]

The english dub was better than most, but still a bit embarrassing.

[Kenny_Strawn]

The difference is that a GPU has 512 4-bit cores, while a CPU has 1-4 64-bit cores.

You see, a GPU is designed for one thing: to do matrix algebra and do it well. It CANNOT do much more than compute a GUI, which is what it is designed for.

In contrast, your regular CPU is designed for much more than that. It can do all sorts of calculations, which is why it runs your main board, not the GPU.

[Jarmen_Deffs]

The only real difference your going to notice with 64 bit is the memory addressing capabilities.

Not so. You also get more registers, wider registers, and wider data paths, all of which can (and I stress the can; they are not always taken advantage of) be used to improve performance.

[Frak]

That won't be good for ATI then. :D
AMD is merging ATi technology into their chips. That's where they're deriving their GPU power and architecture from.

[TheNessus]

You'd think it would be that the CPU would be only good at what its name suggests: processing.


Central PROCESSING unit
Graphic PROCESSING unit

both do processing, son.

[dragos240]

Central PROCESSING unit
Graphic PROCESSING unit

both do processing, son.

I am disappoint.

[Psumi]

Central PROCESSING unit
Graphic PROCESSING unit

both do processing, son.

Central Processing Unit is for "Everything" though, hence "Central."

[samh785]

Central Processing Unit is for "Everything" though, hence "Central."
Which is why it's better at taking everything that is thrown at it.


You'd think it would be that the CPU would be only good at what its name suggests: processing.

[aklo]

Why do you want to know about this? Just know that gpu is for graphics and cpu is for other processing. yes cpu can do graphic processing but they suck at it.

Just search for mythbusters nvidia video on youtube.

Also you really don't have to care about 32/64 bit just know that the higher the better. Yes you don't have to be a tech person like some of the guys in this thread to get an idea of the difference...

Ok so from my understanding of an average computer user (me)

64bits supports more memory i believe the max is cap at 3-4GB for 32bit.
Yes 64bits processor is faster but not all applications utilize the power of 64bit processing due to how they program their programs (not that sure on this)

Oh i read all these through various tech sites last time.

Tomshardware.com is a good website...i'm not advertising but it should be one of the best computer sites out there.

[Psumi]

yes cpu can do graphic processing but they suck at it.

Oh? I remember seeing this little (less than 1 KB) file here on ubuntu forums that did a graphics render, all done by the CPU. The CPU barely went over 1% and the graphics were even better than the Intel Infoscape.

[Post Monkeh]

Oh? I remember seeing this little (less than 1 KB) file here on ubuntu forums that did a graphics render, all done by the CPU. The CPU barely went over 1% and the graphics were even better than the Intel Infoscape.

it'll do some things alright, but a dedicated gpu is better at things like 3d rendering and effects .
it's probably all about the architechture of the chips. cpus are restricted by trying to keep backwards compatibility with older operating systems, programs,and motherboards, i think maybe gpus can use more up to date technology that allows them to do the tasks they do at a superior rate to a normal cpu

[the yawner]

All I know is that 64 is double of 32. Mind boggling.

[swoll1980]

Not so. You also get more registers, wider registers, and wider data paths, all of which can (and I stress the can; they are not always taken advantage of) be used to improve performance.

Increase the performance of what?

[aklo]

Oh? I remember seeing this little (less than 1 KB) file here on ubuntu forums that did a graphics render, all done by the CPU. The CPU barely went over 1% and the graphics were even better than the Intel Infoscape.

Give me a break. I state in my post i am not a tech guy just an average user and my interpretations may not be correct but the idea is there. Call it graphic processing or graphic 3d rendering but to me they all mean the same.

I've created this thread sometime ago , which show perfectly how a cpu sucks at doing these things on inkscape. A simple blur effect in inkscape if zoomed in and you will see why cpu sucks at doing graphics. I'm not saying if inkscapes supports gpu the performace will certainly be better...but i'm hoping...

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1424618
If you have inkscape just download the svg file and open it. Then just zoom in, i'll be suprise if somebody tells me that it is smooth as a lub.

[Frak]

Increase the performance of what?
Anything that decides to use the extra width given to it.

[Jarmen_Deffs]

Increase the performance of what?

"What" you were referring to here: "The only real difference your going to notice with 64 bit is the memory addressing capabilities."

If what you actually wanted to say was that you think I'm wrong, I'd be happy to explain.

[swoll1980]

"What" you were referring to here: "The only real difference your going to notice with 64 bit is the memory addressing capabilities."

If what you actually wanted to say was that you think I'm wrong, I'd be happy to explain.

No I'm asking what does it increase the performance of noticeably, and it has to be a noticeable difference.

[Jarmen_Deffs]

No I'm asking what does it increase the performance of noticeably, and it has to be a noticeable difference.

Oh, noticeably...

Video encoding and rendering spring to mind.
You may also notice the difference in compiling, file de/compression, flash (if you use the 64 bit version), boot times if you're lucky, and as has already been said, anything written to take advantage of it (V8 for example).

[swoll1980]

Oh, noticeably...

Video encoding and rendering spring to mind.
You may also notice the difference in compiling, file de/compression, flash (if you use the 64 bit version), boot times if you're lucky, and as has already been said, anything written to take advantage of it (V8 for example).

Not trying to be a ****. I asked my teacher this question about 3 weeks ago, and his answer was "The only thing your going to notice is the memory addressing" This guy was an engineer for Bell Labs for 30 years. They wrote operating systems,compression algorithms, talked to computers in assembly language, and all kinds of impressive things. He just doesn't seem like the kind of guy to be wrong about something like this. This is why I ask.

[Frak]

Not trying to be a ****. I asked my teacher this question about 3 weeks ago, and his answer was "The only thing your going to notice is the memory addressing" This guy was an engineer for Bell Labs for 30 years. They wrote operating systems,compression algorithms, talked to computers in assembly language, and all kinds of impressive things. He just doesn't seem like the kind of guy to be wrong about something like this. This is why I ask.
90% of the time it's just memory addressing. Some applications that utilize 64-bit may still not have a noticeable difference. 3dsmax under Windows comes to mind. The 32 and 64 bit versions run the same on my machine.

[Jarmen_Deffs]

Not trying to be a ****. I asked my teacher this question about 3 weeks ago, and his answer was "The only thing your going to notice is the memory addressing" This guy was an engineer for Bell Labs for 30 years. They wrote operating systems,compression algorithms, talked to computers in assembly language, and all kinds of impressive things. He just doesn't seem like the kind of guy to be wrong about something like this. This is why I ask.

Perhaps he meant the average consumer will never know that some of the speed increase they gained when they bought their first 64 bit machine was partly due to the fact that it's 64 bit, they just know they can fit more memory in than they could before? I don't know, I can' t try to second guess someone else's meaning...

You can try it for yourself by using 64 bit software on 64 bit hardware, and you should notice improvements, or even better learn to write assembly code; you will know how and why 64 bit can offer a performance increase if you spend a bit of time increasing your knowledge there. ;)

[Frak]

Perhaps he meant the average consumer will never know that some of the speed increase they gained when they bought their first 64 bit machine was partly due to the fact that it's 64 bit, they just know they can fit more memory in than they could before? I don't know, I can' t try to second guess someone else's meaning...

You can try it for yourself by using 64 bit software on 64 bit hardware, and you should notice improvements, or even better learn to write assembly code; you will know how and why 64 bit can offer a performance increase if you spend a bit of time increasing your knowledge there. ;)
Or use a better compiler.

[cascade9]

Oh, noticeably...

Video encoding and rendering spring to mind.
You may also notice the difference in compiling, file de/compression, flash (if you use the 64 bit version), boot times if you're lucky, and as has already been said, anything written to take advantage of it (V8 for example).

Pretty much. In a lot of things (probably most, apart from the few 'wow that was faster' programs), you will see a 5-10% increase (eg boot likes, flash). I admit, I dont really notice the difference in boot timess (30 seconds vs 28.5...wow, thats huge:| ) but where you will really notice the difference is on anything that takes a lot of processing. Graphics rendering gets a big boost. Even things like apache get more from 64bit.

http://www.tuxradar.com/content/ubuntu-904-32-bit-vs-64-bit-benchmarks

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae&num=1

BTW, its only been the last 2-3 years hat 64bit has really got to where it is. If you check benchmarks from 2006, 64 bit was pretty much the same as 32bit (some things slower, some things faster, not a huge margin either way). IMO 64bit will continue to mature, and will gain a bit more performance over the next year or two, but probably not as dramaticly as the increase as over the last few years.

[snova]

The difference is that a GPU has 512 4-bit cores, while a CPU has 1-4 64-bit cores.

You see, a GPU is designed for one thing: to do matrix algebra and do it well. It CANNOT do much more than compute a GUI, which is what it is designed for.

In contrast, your regular CPU is designed for much more than that. It can do all sorts of calculations, which is why it runs your main board, not the GPU.

On the contrary. Take shaders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shader), or GPGPU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPGPU)- GPU's excel at anything parallelizable, and are every bit as programmable as an average processor. And they are only getting more powerful.

At the same time, CPU's are introducing more instruction SIMD instruction sets. The difference is blurring. I am beginning to wonder whether the only unique thing CPU's do is run operating systems. (Referring to memory protection.)

[Frak]

On the contrary. Take shaders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shader), or GPGPU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPGPU)- GPU's excel at anything parallelizable, and are every bit as programmable as an average processor. And they are only getting more powerful.

At the same time, CPU's are introducing more instruction SIMD instruction sets. The difference is blurring. I am beginning to wonder whether the only unique thing CPU's do is run operating systems. (Referring to memory protection.)
It's only a matter of time before memory protection is yet another programmable instruction. And yes, I did say that as stupid and unrealistic as it sounds.