PhysX and multi-core support

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
It would be stupid to assume someone can't build a CPU with add-ons that would benefit physics processing and other operations currently slated for GPGPU. Not that I'm saying this is the best approach but lets not write off the CPU because of what it currently can't do. As we build better and smaller CPU's, we can add more to them. Granted the same will be true for GPU's.

I think we are about to come full circle with CPU . Back in the late 80's early 90's you had a lot of home computers that consisted of a microprocessor to do things like program execution but everything else was a specialized processor. For example in the Amiga computer it was a 68K processor and the rest was performed by multiple chips that handled what they were best at doing. CPU became faster and for a while the idea became that if we need to do something faster we will just make a faster general purpose cpu, but that doesn't work so well if you can't make a single core faster . There is a limit to how far you can divide task in a program too so that is now two limits on how fast a program can run.

I think companies like ARM have the right idea. They know that the core is not fast enough to do everything else and still process flash video and java. So they add modules to the core that are hardware that does nothing but java or flash. It is like adding more cores in the x86 world, but for less cost and it is more efficient at the task. It is easier for developers because they know that it takes the specialized module X amount of time on every system regardless of other variables. From a developer perspective it is great. I can send a line of code to the module, I know it will process it in .02 seconds every time on every computer. I don't have to work out threads, or cores or what is in the pipeline.

X86 is used to doing things where the processor is general purpose. I think they will have to move away from that or take a backseat to newer tech.
 

evolucion8

Platinum Member
Jun 17, 2005
2,867
3
81
In case you don't know, the Hz refers to cycle, which equates to one operation of a CPU. 1 hz = 1 cycle(operation) per second, and 3Ghz CPU means 3,000 operation per second, regardless of the type of CPU. A single I7 core that runs at 3Ghz handles exact same number of operations than a P4 at 3Ghz. The P4 CPU I picked, Cedar Mill, is a 64-bit processor, same as I7. That means the number of cycle required to complete instructions is exactly the same.

Say things scale perfectly.
I7 = 4x P4 = 4x21k = 84k
Fermi = 4x8800GTS = 4x69k = 276k

Therefore, Fermi is 276/84 X 100% = 328.57% or more than 3x faster than I7.

Are you crazy? You can't compare the Pentium 4 directly to even a Core 2 Duo, Pentium 4 in the best case scenario can only issue 3 instructions per clock cycle, AMD K8 can issue 5 instructions per clock cycle, Core i7 can issue 6 instructions per cycle and if you use SIMD instructions, the IPC is even better. How can you compare the Core i7 in terms of performance against a Pentium 4? Pentium M running at 2.0GHz is faster than a Pentium 4 running at 3.2GHz, would you be able to explain why? Core 2 architecture can fuse instructions in a single clock to maximize execution engine utilization.

Perfect scaling doesn't exist in the CPU world and neither in the GPU, Is the HD 5870 twice faster than a HD 4890? Is the Core i7 twice faster than the Core 2 Quad?

You are just trolling the thread stating lies and things that clearly you don't know.

BTW, would you stop accusing me of all sort of stuff, it's irrelevant and only makes you look less than stellar when it backfires.

Definitively I'm more stellar than you, you are just trolling the thread derailing and attacking me personally and bothering the mods reporting empty attacks. You can't even reply the lonyo post because you lack of the knowledge. You need to stop for real.


I fail to see anything relevant, reported.

You need help, for real.
 
Last edited:

Seero

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2009
1,456
0
0
Are you crazy? You can't compare the Pentium 4 directly to even a Core 2 Duo, Pentium 4 in the best case scenario can only issue 3 instructions per clock cycle, AMD K8 can issue 5 instructions per clock cycle, Core i7 can issue 6 instructions per cycle and if you use SIMD instructions, the IPC is even better. How can you compare the Core i7 in terms of performance against a Pentium 4? Pentium M running at 2.0GHz is faster than a Pentium 4 running at 3.2GHz, would you be able to explain why? Core 2 architecture can fuse instructions in a single clock to maximize execution engine utilization.

Perfect scaling doesn't exist in the CPU world and neither in the GPU, Is the HD 5870 twice faster than a HD 4890? Is the Core i7 twice faster than the Core 2 Quad?

You are just trolling the thread stating lies and things that clearly you don't know.
Hmm, Lonyo post some ill numeric figures, you replied:
Your calculations are awesome, I knew that my statement was more realistic than his pov, but your knowledge simply brings a much better understanding of it, let's sync with our virtual head bluetooth intranet, so I can learn more loll
I justified the figure, you replied:
Are you crazy? You can't compare... You are just trolling the thread stating lies and things that clearly you don't know.
And I am the troll...
 

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
5,644
1,829
136
I don't speculate on "what if" or "in some years"...i am talking about the facts...today.
If you want to go down that line, we migh render the graphics on CPU's, since they are so powerfull today...oh wait.

That's funny, cause there are more than one thread that is speculative in nature, in other words "what if" or "in some years" threads, where you participate. And now because it isn't convenient to your argument you don't want to play the speculation game?

Technology constantly changes. Developers don't have unlimited resources and they need to put their efforts into something that will pay off not just today but in the years to come. And we do have CPU's with massive parallelism similar to what is in a GPU. Look up the Cell processor and its SPE's. So it is technology that is available today. Might not be mainstream CPU's but you can't rule out Intel and AMD implementing something similar in their CPU's.

For what games?
And that argument is the same with AA...or increasing the resolution...no calculations comes for free...point being?

Funny, you didn't mention that in your argument for GPU's and against CPU's. Cause that renders your previous point about CPU's being a bottleneck due to the increased load moot.

That's actually the best reason to write off the CPU.

All you're doing is quoting one sentence out of context to try to support your own argument. Either respond in full because the sentence you quoted me is not my full thought or don't quote me at all.

I think we are about to come full circle with CPU . Back in the late 80's early 90's you had a lot of home computers that consisted of a microprocessor to do things like program execution but everything else was a specialized processor....

Since roughly 2008 it has been my opinion that we are approaching computer systems that are similar to what we have today but with a very high speed bus similar to Hypertransport for whatever extra tasks is needed.

I think companies like ARM have the right idea. They know that the core is not fast enough to do everything else and still process flash video and java. So they add modules to the core that are hardware that does nothing but java or flash. It is like adding more cores in the x86 world, but for less cost and it is more efficient at the task. It is easier for developers because they know that it takes the specialized module X amount of time on every system regardless of other variables. From a developer perspective it is great. I can send a line of code to the module, I know it will process it in .02 seconds every time on every computer. I don't have to work out threads, or cores or what is in the pipeline.

X86 is used to doing things where the processor is general purpose. I think they will have to move away from that or take a backseat to newer tech.

I'm actually a fan of where ARM is progressing. Tegra2 is definitely on my radar. For smaller devices, it seems having a "core CPU" and then adding modules for whatever purpose you need seems to be the right way to go due to size and power constraints.

Obviously with a desktop we don't have some of these limitations so I'm of the opinion things will be similar but instead of the modules integrated to the CPU, the "modules" will be separately installed on either a daughter card or socket and connected by a high speed bus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.