os that rather uses the gpu?
danielmesquitadearaujo at yahoo.com.br
Wed Jul 14 23:08:59 UTC 2010
On 07/14/2010 07:46 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
> On 14 July 2010 02:20, Jordon Bedwell<jordon at envygeeks.com> wrote:
>> On 7/13/2010 8:15 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
>>> On 13 July 2010 21:46, Jozsi Avadkan<jozsi.avadkan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Does someone know a distribution/operating system, that rather uses the
>>>> GPU for "working", not the CPU? [by default]
>>>> Or this solution is still in the "beginning part"?
>>>> Thanks for any tips, link, suggestions.
>>> Not possible. CPUs are *central* processing units for a reason:
>>> because they are generalised processors that can do anything. GPUs are
>>> *graphics* processing units, modern ones being designed to do 3D
>>> modelling in hardware. This means they can do certain types of
>>> mathematical operation very fast, but it doesn't mean that they are
>>> replacement CPUs or better than CPUs in general.
>>> It's like keen darts players: they can subtract down from 501 to zero
>>> very quickly, but it doesn't mean they're good at arithmetic: many can
>>> only add 3 numbers of 1-20 and 2x and 3x those numbers, 25 and 50,
>>> nothing else, and they can't multiply or divide worth a damn. They are
>>> practiced at one task.
>>> GPUs are not some miracle new device. They're not wonder-processors
>>> that are better than "boring old x86" chips. It doesn't work like
>>> that. The x86 is a far more versatile, elaborate and clever device,
>>> with years of brilliant design going into it; GPUs are one-trick
>>> ponies. Great for that one trick, completely useless for anything
>>> Ignore the hype. Just because certain types of math can now be done on
>>> GPUs does not mean GPUs are the future or are going to change
>> That's not what Intel and Nvidia said.
> I don't really care! :¬) One of the things I do for a living is go
> through the bumf that comes out of technology companies, work out the
> real deal, and explain it in articles for the Register and so on. In
> other words, clearing the BS and exposing the truth.
> More generally - of /course/ nVidia is going to say GPUs are the
> be-all and end-all: nVidia is a pretty much pure-play GPU
> manufacturer. It doesn't make CPUs.
> Intel? Intel is rather saying the reverse - that you don't need GPUs
> given enough CPUs. This is the message from devices like "Larrabee",
> which was a "GPU" consisting of a closely-coupled array of a large
> number of x86 CPU cores on a single chip.
> Don't believe what big tech companies say. Look at what they /do./
> They are chiefly concerned with selling you stuff you don't need, not
> giving you better products.
Nice explanation Liam!
Thank you not only for this technical explanation, but also teach the
best way to life.
Cheers, Daniel *** Little Blind *** Brasil
More information about the ubuntu-users