Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

NVIDIA To Push Into Supercomputing 103

RedEaredSlider writes "NVIDIA outlined a plan to become 'the computing company,' moving well beyond its traditional focus on graphics and into high-profile areas such as supercomputing. NVIDIA is making heavy investments in several fields. Its Tegra product will be featured in several mobile devices, including a number of tablets that have either hit the market already or are planned for release this year. Its GeForce lineup is gaming-focused while Quadro is all about computer-aided design workstations. The Tesla product line is at the center of NVIDIA's supercomputing push."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NVIDIA To Push Into Supercomputing

Comments Filter:
  • Re:more nukes :/ (Score:4, Informative)

    by gupg ( 58086 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @12:56PM (#35431722) Homepage

    5 of Top 10 most green supercomputers use GPUs:
    Green 500 List [green500.org]

    Each GPU is very high performance and so high power. Performance / watt is what counts and
    here GPUs beat CPUs by 4 to 5 times. This is why so many of the new supercomputers are using
    GPUs / heterogenous computing.

  • Re:more nukes :/ (Score:5, Informative)

    by Antisyzygy ( 1495469 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @01:00PM (#35431760)
  • Re:more nukes :/ (Score:4, Informative)

    by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @01:49PM (#35432530) Journal

    If all you're measuring is pure FLOPS, then here are some numbers: Cray X1, 250MFLOPS. nVidia Fermi: 1GFLOPS. ARM Cortex A8: 10MFLOPS. Of course, that doesn't tell the whole story. Getting 250MFLOPS out of the Cray required writing everything using huge vectors. Getting 1GFLOPS from Fermi requires using vectors within independent concurrent processing tasks which access memory in a predictable pattern and rarely branch.

    GPUs are not magic, they are just optimised for different workloads. CPUs are designed to work well with algorithms that branch frequently (every 7 instructions or so - so they devote a lot of die area to branch prediction), have good locality of reference (cache speeds up memory in these cases), and have an integer-heavy workload. GPUs generally lack branch prediction, so a branch causes a pipeline stall (and, on something like Fermi, if two kernels take different branches then you drop to 50% throughput immediately). Their memory architecture is designed to stream large blocks of data in a few different orders (e.g. a texture cube, pixels in order along any axis). So, depending on your workload, either one may be faster than the other.

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...