Nifty Tom Mitchell wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 01:35:43PM -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
David Mathog wrote:
Although the folks now using CUDA are likely most interested in crunch
per unit time (time efficiency), perhaps some of you have measurements
and can comment on the energy efficiency of GPU vs. CPU computing? That
is, which uses the fewest kilowatts per unit of computation. My guess
Using theoretical rather than "actual" performance, unless you get the
same code doing the same computation on both units:
Another issue is the upgrade cost and upgrade potential. Looking across
my room I see an older AMD-64bit single core Athlon box. It would be
less expensive and much less of a task to swap out and upgrade the GFX
card than it would be to update the processor. In some cases multiple
GFX cards are also possible.
Also it makes little sense for me to upgrade the GFX card based on
graphics display needs only. If I toss CUDA in the mix a high end
GFX card upgrade does get interesting.
What makes this very interesting is that you can get reasonable CUDA
performance for a number of apps for ~$500. Add in the powersupply you
will likely need ($300) to support more than one card ...
... the cost benefit analysis just keeps getting better ... *if* your
code can use it. There is no guarantee on this, but it is worth
considering.
--
Joseph Landman, Ph.D
Founder and CEO
Scalable Informatics LLC,
email: land...@scalableinformatics.com
web : http://www.scalableinformatics.com
http://jackrabbit.scalableinformatics.com
phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121
fax : +1 866 888 3112
cell : +1 734 612 4615
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
