fbpx

Do you consider GPU a disruptive technology in the Scientific Computing arena?

(Last Updated On: April 4, 2012)

Do you consider GPGPU a disruptive technology in the Scientific Computing arena?

 

==

that’s why the Tesla’s cost an extra $2k: its not for the RAM, its because they don’t have a video

==

 

http://www.hpcwire.com/features/Compilers-and-More-Knights-Ferry-v-Fermi-100051864.html

 

==

http://www.hpcwire.com/features/MATLAB-Adds-GPGPU-Support-103307084.html
Scientific computing customer base explosion!!! great milestone.
also with IEEE compliant DP Floating point support….this is impressive.

 

==

GPU’s are not a disruptive technology. When applied to the correct field and problem they can provide improvements and solutions that a CPU cannot. A good example is the visualisation cluster at TACC.

 

==

I do not see the GPU as a good approach to scientific computaion. Before 2000 I had worked with the intel I860 which I consider a much better approach.

The i860 processor, has been modestly described by Intel as “a Cray on a Chip”, has high levels of integer, floating point, and 3D graphics performance. It was used in UNIX workstations and the Intel iPSC/860 Supercomputer. It has since been discontinued.

I hope in the near future to see pure quantum devices for high end computation. In addition utilizing multiple DSP chips and 1 or 2 RISC chips is a very good approach.

GPU’s are fine from my perspective for a simple inexpensive approach, for initial general computation, but you have to deal with their limitations

 

==

If you search CUDA on Google scholar, you get 23,700 papers; most of these are peer reviewed scientific papers that use GPUs.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=CUDA+-%22Giovanni+Cuda%22+-%22JP+CUDA%22+-%22C+CUDA%22+-%22G+CUDA%22+-%22F+CUDA%22+-%22A+CUDA%22+&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on

 

==

The i860 had plenty of limitations too. The i960 was a better design. Ultimately, though, when the pentium came out they were faster so the i860 died.

 

==

To be positivelly disruptive a new technology need to be 10X better on 1 or multiple parameters , in particular on perf,cost,power ; in fact cost is the single parameter that should be the measure of disruption ; cost is naturally TCO of the solution
Disruptive can also be negative, for exemple the way to program , being disruptive in not expected except if making the coding and optimisation significantly simpler than with our current methods ; this is not the case today
The benefits should be valid for a wide variety of business cases and preferably for the dominant workloads in HPC
When we compare a well tuned code on a X86 code it is very rare to see 10X in performance
On the economy side if you add 1 GPU in a node to be 10X better you need probably to achieve 50X on the performance side
Then the GPU is NOT a disruptive technology, it is an opportunistic solution to achieve a 2X to 4X in certain niches
To make the GPU a disruptive technology the cost need to be radically lower or the memory bandwidth radically increased
Meanwhile the GPU can be an interesting option for a certain part of a workload but we will have very soon many more options like MIC or low power CPU and they have more chance to be disruptive for a wider part of the HPC market

 

NOTE I now post my TRADING ALERTS into my personal FACEBOOK ACCOUNT and TWITTER. Don't worry as I don't post stupid cat videos or what I eat!

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to best of business news, informed analysis and opinions on what matters to you.
Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.

NOTE!

Check NEW site on stock forex and ETF analysis and automation

Scroll to Top