Slashdot Mirror


Using GPUs For General-Purpose Computing

Paul Tinsley writes "After seeing the press releases from both Nvidia and ATI announcing their next generation video card offerings, it got me to thinking about what else could be done with that raw processing power. These new cards weigh in with transistor counts of 220 and 160 million (respectively) with the P4 EE core at a count of 29 million. What could my video card be doing for me while I am not playing the latest 3d games? A quick search brought me to some preliminary work done at the University of Washington with a GeForce4 TI 4600 pitted against a 1.5GHz P4. My Favorite excerpt from the paper: 'For a 1500x1500 matrix, the GPU outperforms the CPU by a factor of 3.2.' A PDF of the paper is available here."

27 of 396 comments (clear)

  1. The day is saved by drsmack1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I finally have a use for the 20 Voodoo 2 cards I have in a box in the basement. Now I can have my very own supercomputer. I just need some six pci slot motherboards.... Instant cluster!

    1. Re:The day is saved by PygmySurfer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unless those Voodoo 2s have magically grown T&L units, they're not going to do you much good.

      Maybe they have. They've been trapped in that box together in the basement for a long time.

  2. What?!?!?! by DarkHelmet · · Score: 5, Funny
    What? Matrix operations run faster on a massively parallel form of vector processor over a general purpose processor? How can that be?

    Intel's been telling me for years that I need faster hardware from THEM to get the job done...

    You mean........ they were lying?!?!?

    CRAP!

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    1. Re:What?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, the Intel processor is *much* faster at the internet thingy. Graphics cards only do the upload to screen thing, and everyone knows the internet is all about downloading.

      And besides, nobody needs or wants Matrix operations anyway. Did you see how bad Matrix Reloaded was? That was *just* reloading, imagine how bad Matrix Multiplying is. You get the idea.

  3. Link to previous discussion on same/similar sub... by 8282now · · Score: 5, Informative
  4. Googled HTML by balster+neb · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a HTML version of the PDF, thanks to Google.

  5. As has been said many time before ... by keltor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The GPU are very fast ... at performing vector and matrix calculations. This is the whole point. If general computing CPUs were capable of doing vector or matrix calcs very efficiently, we would probably not have GPUs.

    1. Re:As has been said many time before ... by lazy_arabica · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The GPU are very fast ... at performing vector and matrix calculations. This is the whole point. If general computing CPUs were capable of doing vector or matrix calcs very efficiently, we would probably not have GPUs.
      Yes. But 3D graphics are not the only use of these mathematical objects ; I wonder if it would be possible to use a GPU to perform video encoding or digital sound manipulation at a higher speed, as both operations require matrices. I'm also sure they could take advantage of these processors vector manipulation capabilities.
  6. 178 Million in the P4EE by 2megs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Pentium 4 EE actually has 178 million transistors, which puts it in between ATI's and NVIDIA's latest.

    In all of this, keep in mind that there's computing and there's computing...the kind of computing power in a GPU is excellent for doing the same numeric computation to every element of a large vector or matrix, not so much for branchy decisiony type things like walking a binary tree. You wouldn't want to run a database on something structured like a GPU (or an old vector-processing Cray), but something like a simulation of weather or molecular modeliing could be perfect for it.

    The similarities of a GPU to a vector processing system bring up an interesting possibility...could Fortran see a renaissance for writing shader programs?

    1. Re:178 Million in the P4EE by Knightmare · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, it's true that it has that many transistors BUT, only 29 million of them are part of the core, the rest is memory. The transistor count on the video cards does not count the ram.

    2. Re:178 Million in the P4EE by gunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, it's like UNIX, it's userfriendly, it's just selects it's friends very carefully.
      IMHO, the perfect friend is someone interested in maximum performance and knows how to program and knows something about computer hardware.

      Have you looked at fortran 90, 95 or 2000?

      --
      Evolution of Language Through The Ages: 6000 BC : ungh, grrf, booga 2000 AD : grep, awk, sed
  7. Website on this topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    General-purpose computation using graphics hardware has been a significant topic of study for the last few years. Pointers to a lot of papers and discussion on the subject are available at: www.gpgpu.org

  8. Hacking the GPU by nihilogos · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is a course being offered at caltech since last summer on using gpus for numerical work. Course page is here.

    --
    :wq
  9. What comes next. by CherniyVolk · · Score: 5, Funny


    "Utilize the sheer computing power of your video card!"

    New market blitz, hmmmm.

    SETI ports their code, and within five days their average completed work units increase 1000 fold. 13 hours later, they have evidence of intelligent life at 30000 locations within one degree.

    Microsoft gets the hint, and comes out with a brilliant plan to utilize GPUs to speed up their OS and add bells and whistles to their UI.

    And, once again, Apple and Quartz Extreme is ignored.

  10. It's nice, but could be nicer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Before you get excited just remember how asymmetric the APG bus is. Those GPUs will be at much better use when we get them as 64bit pci cards.

  11. Not just the GPU : the RAM by ratboot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What's interesting with new video cards it's their memory capacity, 128 or 256 MB and that this memory is accessible on some new cards at 900 MHz with a data path of 256 bit (which is a lot faster than a CPU with DDR 400 installed).

  12. Wow by cubicledrone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All that processing power, and the latest games still run at about 22 frames per second, if that.

    The CPU can do six billion instructions a second, the GPU can do 18 billion, and every last cycle is being used to stuff a 40MB texture into memory faster. What a waste. Yeah, the walls are even more green and slimy. Whoop-de-fucking-do.

    Would it be great if all that processing power could be used for something other than yet-another-graphics-demo?

    Like, maybe some new and innovative gameplay?

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
  13. This is BIG by macrealist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Creating a way to use the specialize GPUs for vector processing that is not graphics related is ingenious. Like a lot of great ideas, it is sooo obvious AFTER you see some one else do it.

    Don't miss the point that this is not intended for general purpose computing. Don't port OoO to the graphics chip.

    Where it is huge is in signal processing. FPGAs have begun replacing even the G4s in this area recently because of the huge gains in speed vs. power consumption an FPGA affords. However, FPGAs are not bought and used as is, and end up costing a significant amount (of development time/money) to become useful. Being able to use these commodity GPUs for vector processing creates a very desirable price/processing power/power consumption option. If I were nVIDIA or ATI, I would be shoveling these guys money to continue their work.

    --
    I am living proof of the Peter Principle
  14. Siggraph 2003 by Adam_Trask · · Score: 5, Informative
    Check out the publication list in Siggraph 2003. There is a whole section named "Computation on GPUs" (papers listed below). And the papers for Siggraph 2004 should be out shortly.

    If you have a matrix solver, there is no telling what you can do. And i remember, these papers show that the speed is faster than the matrix calculations of the same stuff using the CPU.

    # Linear Algebra Operators for GPU Implementation of Numerical Algorithms
    Jens Krüger, Rüdiger Westermann

    # Sparse Matrix Solvers on the GPU: Conjugate Gradients and Multigrid
    Jeff Bolz, Ian Farmer, Eitan Grinspun, Peter Schröder

    # Nonlinear Optimization Framework for Image-Based Modeling on Programmable Graphics Hardware
    Karl E. Hillesland, Sergey Molinov, Radek Grzeszczuk

  15. Finally by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 5, Funny

    Using GPUs For General-Purpose Computing

    I'm glad that finally they started to use the General-Purpose Unit. What took them so long?

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  16. Re:Not the Point by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dude, you obviously have never tried to sleep in a motorcycle.

    KFG

  17. Bass Ackwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps offloading the CPU to the GPU is the wrong way to look at things? With the apparently imminent arrival of commodity (low power) multi-CPU chips, maybe we should be considering what we need to add to perform graphics more efficiently (ala MMX et al)?

    While it's true that general purpose hardware will never perform as well as or as efficiently as a design specifically targeted to the task (or at least it better not), it is also equally as true that eventually general purpose/commodity hardware will achieve a price-performance point where it is more than "good enough" for majority.

  18. transistor counts through the ages by nothings · · Score: 5, Informative
    Transistor counts keep growing, so I keep updating this and reposting it about once a year.

    486 : 1.2 million transistors
    Pentium : 3 million transistors
    Pentium Pro : 5.5 million transistors
    Pentium 2 : 7.5 million transistors
    Nvidia TNT2 : 9 million transistors
    Alpha 21164 : 9.3 million (1994)
    Alpha 21264 : 15.2 million (1998)
    Geforce 256 : 23 million transistors
    Pentium 3 : 28 million transistors
    Pentium 4 : 42 million transistors
    P4 Northwood : 55 million transistors
    GeForce 3 : 57 million transistors
    GeForce 4 : 63 million transistors
    Radeon 9700 : 110 million transistors
    GeForce FX : 125 million transistors
    P4 Prescott : 125 million transistors
    Radeon X800 : 160 million transistors
    P4 EE : 178 million transistors
    GeForce 6800 : 220 million transistors
    here's the non-sucky version since <ecode> doesn't actually preserve spacing like <pre>.
  19. I think I speak for many of us by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I say oh shut the fuck up.

    Sorry for the flames, but seriously, I get so damn sick of all the "all new games suck" whiners. Look, there are legit reasons to want new technology. It is nice to have better graphics, more realistic sound, etc. It is NICE to have game that looks and sounds more like reality. Yes, that doesn't make the game great, but that doesn't mean it's worthless.

    What's more, don't pretend like all modern games suck while old games ruled. That's a bunch of bullshit. Sure, there are plenty of modern games that suck, but guess what? There are tons of old games that suck too. Thing is, you just tend to forget about them. You remember the greats that you enjoyed or heard about, the ones that helped shape gaming today. You forget all the utter shit that was released, just as is released today.

    So get off it. If you don't like nice graphics, fine. Stick with old games, no one is forcing you to upgrade. But don't pretend like there is no reason to want better graphics in games.

    1. Re:I think I speak for many of us by Tim+C · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hear, hear.

      There's something that's always puzzled me a little about this site - attached to every single article about some new piece of PC tech - a faster processor, better graphics card, etc - there are a number of comments bemoaning the advance. All of them saying that people don't need the power/speed they have already, that they personally are just fine with 4 year old hardware, or, in this case, that better graphics don't make for better games. Hell, the same is true for mobile phones - I've lost count of the number of comments bemoaning advances in them, too.

      It's funny, but I thought this was supposed to be a site for geeks; aren't geeks supposed to *like* newer, better toys?

      To get back on topic - no, better graphics are not sufficient for a better game. However, if the gameplay is there, then they can certainly make the experience more enjoyable. Would Quake have been as much fun if it was rendered in wireframes?

      Better graphics help add to the sense of realisim, making the game a more immersive experience. The whole point of the majority of games is entertainment and (to an extent) escapism. Additionally, what a lot of people like the grand-parent poster seem to forget is that most of the big-name game engines are licensed for use in a number of games. Let people like id spend their time and money coming up with the most graphically intensive, realistic engine they can. Think Doom 3'll suck because the gameplay will be crap? Fine, then wait for someone to license the engine and create a better game with it. In the meantime, please shut up and remember that there are those of us who like things to be pretty, as well as useful/well made/fun/(good at $primaryPurpose)

      Good graphics on their own won't make a good game, but they will help make a good game great.

  20. Re:Link to previous discussion on same/similar sub by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 5, Informative

    QE is cool, but it doesn't do anything similar at all to what they're talking about here. FFTs on an NV30 are only incidentally related to texture mapping window contents. Check out gpgpu.org or BrookGPU. In a sense, the idea is to treat modern graphics hardware as the next step beyond SIMD instruction sets. Incidentally, e17 exploited (hardware) GL rendering of 2D graphics via evas a bit before Apple put that into OS X.

  21. Commodore 64 by curator_thew · · Score: 5, Interesting


    This concept was being used back in 1988. The Commodore 64 (1mhz 6510, a 6502 like micro processor) had a peripheral 5.25 disk drive called the 1541, which itself had a 1mhz 6510 cpu in it, connected via. a serial link.

    It became common practice to introduce fast loaders: these were partially resident in the C64, and also in the 1541: effectively replacing the 1541's limited firmware.

    However, demo programmers figured out how to utilise the 1541: one particular demo involved uploading program to the 1541 at start, then upon ever screen rewrite, uploading vectors to the 1541, which the 1541 would perform calculations in parallel with the C64, then at the end of the screen, the C64 fetch the results from the 1541, and incorporate them into the next screen frame.

    Equally, GPU provides similar capability if so used.