It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Yes and no. Yes they are a completely different architecture but there's a way to make apples to apples comparisons if you compare the petaflops output of a supercomputer:
You can get 2.5 petaflops with either 50,000 CPUs or with 7.16 GPUs plus 14,336 CPUs, that's an apples to apples comparison in petaflops output, right?
Apparently they use the same benchmark for the CPU and the GPU based systems, called LINPACK:
Originally posted by john_bmth
Not unless you are processing the same data.
Rmax – The highest score measured using the LINPACK benchmark suite. This is the number that is used to rank the computers. Measured in trillions of floating point operations per second, i.e. Teraflops.
Originally posted by 46ACE
"zero watt" (yawn) got one on the shelf already( sales are mysteriously slow though
Interesting post thanks.
en.wikipedia.org...edit on 9-2-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)edit on 9-2-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
C0bzz, my point was that the last time I checked into efficiency of what was available for home PCs (almost a year ago in 2010) it was hard to find a reasonably priced Nvidia card with a die size as small as 40nm and they had nothing smaller,
As far as I could tell the Intel i3 was more efficient any way you sliced it for a home PC, partly because no graphics maker at the time had a 32nm die size like the i3. But there's no doubt the NVIDIA® Tesla™ M2050 GPU is extremely efficient when used in supercomputers.