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. > >
It isn't that easy though. First, does that system have a PCI-E slot, or in particular a Gen2 slot? Maybe changes to the PCI-E slots will slow down so that you can efficiently use the GPU cards. Second, does that box have enough overhead in its power supply to drive an additional 150-250W needed for the GPU? Does it have the right 6 or 8-pin connectors necessary to power the card? Does the full size GPU card fit in the box you have? High powered GPUs (and multiple ones in a box) can be lots of fun to deal with. Craig -- Craig Tierney ([email protected]) _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, [email protected] sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
