Hi,
Here is the link, Adapteva claimed 70 GFLOPS per watt, better than Nvidia or AMD flagship GPU:
http://www.adapteva.com/white-papers/ten-myths-debunked-by-the-epiphany-iv-64-core-accelerator-chip/
100 GFLOPS under 2 watts, imagine this IC integrated into mobile platform, then it will have a huge calculator. They can produce it at 199$, 64 core, 100 GFLOPs. Will this kind of IC help the graphics field?
Regards
Adapteva IC has 50+GFLOPS per watt, can graphics benefit from it?
To not get carried away, that list of myths smells of marketing straw-man arguments...
That said, it looks cool. The idea of having lots of fast little CPU's, with no hardware caches or global RAM chips, and instead just a small dedicated bank of RAM directly connected to each core, is the same design used by the PS3's SPUs. IMHO, these kinds of designs are the future of parallel computing.
The PS3's GPU is known to be really, really outdated... but PS3 games continue to look pretty decent because programmers are able to implement a lot of graphical techniques on the SPU's. So yes, this kind of processor would be very, very useful.
I would really love it if every PC had one of these in it to accelerate heavy computation... but it's hard to market it. Old/existing software doesn't benefit from it, and new software has to be written specifically for it (and why would I bother writing my software for it, if no customers yet have one), so there's a real chicken-and-egg problem when trying to turn this into a product.
That said, it looks cool. The idea of having lots of fast little CPU's, with no hardware caches or global RAM chips, and instead just a small dedicated bank of RAM directly connected to each core, is the same design used by the PS3's SPUs. IMHO, these kinds of designs are the future of parallel computing.
The PS3's GPU is known to be really, really outdated... but PS3 games continue to look pretty decent because programmers are able to implement a lot of graphical techniques on the SPU's. So yes, this kind of processor would be very, very useful.
I would really love it if every PC had one of these in it to accelerate heavy computation... but it's hard to market it. Old/existing software doesn't benefit from it, and new software has to be written specifically for it (and why would I bother writing my software for it, if no customers yet have one), so there's a real chicken-and-egg problem when trying to turn this into a product.
Yeah, what I would really like to see is a modular accelerator card where you can just plug in more and more execution units as you get them, instead of buying whole new hardware every two/three years, kind of like how memory sticks work. That would be interesting.
Yeah, what I would really like to see is a modular accelerator card where you can just plug in more and more execution units as you get them, instead of buying whole new hardware every two/three years, kind of like how memory sticks work. That would be interesting.
Yay for scale model of your minecraft house built using processor- and RAM-cubes!
I would really love it if every PC had one of these in it to accelerate heavy computation... but it's hard to market it. Old/existing software doesn't benefit from it, and new software has to be written specifically for it (and why would I bother writing my software for it, if no customers yet have one), so there's a real chicken-and-egg problem when trying to turn this into a product.
Would something like OpenCL or OpenMP be able to resolve this (the issue of having to write specifically for it)? I haven't used either, so I have no clue.
OpenCL would be able to use that thing pretty nicely but as far as I can tell that thing is a standalone device not a PC expansion. Software already running on it should at least be able to use OpenCL nicely.
I vote for having a voxel world in which each voxel runs on its own CPU
Yay for scale model of your minecraft house built using processor- and RAM-cubes!
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1353822980' post='5003891']
I would really love it if every PC had one of these in it to accelerate heavy computation... but it's hard to market it. Old/existing software doesn't benefit from it, and new software has to be written specifically for it (and why would I bother writing my software for it, if no customers yet have one), so there's a real chicken-and-egg problem when trying to turn this into a product.
Would something like OpenCL or OpenMP be able to resolve this (the issue of having to write specifically for it)? I haven't used either, so I have no clue.
[/quote]"Compute" type languages would be a better fit than OpenMP, but yes, software written for either of them would have a better chance of being instantly portable. You're still facing the problem that most software isn't written using OpenCL though
C'mon guys! With their architecture you get 800MHz * 64 cores which gives you a total of 51.2 GHz!!!! That's wayyyyy more than the puny 16 GHz you get from a GPU!
If that doesn't sell you on their tech, then this mind-blowing performance benchmark is sure to do the trick.
If that doesn't sell you on their tech, then this mind-blowing performance benchmark is sure to do the trick.
C'mon guys! With their architecture you get 800MHz * 64 cores which gives you a total of 51.2 GHz!!!! That's wayyyyy more than the puny 16 GHz you get from a GPU!
If that doesn't sell you on their tech, then this mind-blowing performance benchmark is sure to do the trick.
I'd like to see a comparison with a GPU implementation instead of a CPU implementation. Of course it's a lot faster then the CPU. Though it was actually less lightning fast then I'd expect. But then again, just 2W
I don't doubt their tech is cool and useful, but it's rarely fair to compare cores and "GHz" across different architecture types.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
![51.2 GHz]("http://74.220.215.219/~adapteva/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/technology_table.png"){kind=link}