1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

GPU Computing: Intel's Larrabee - AMD's Fusion - NVIDIA's Tesla + CUDA

Discussion in 'Intel' started by NV55, Oct 31, 2007.

  1. NV55

    NV55 Guest

    GPU Computing Gets Ready for Act II

    The idea of general-purpose computing on graphics processing units
    (GPGPU) continues to capture the imagination of the HPC community. But
    the three big players -- Intel, NVIDIA and AMD -- all have their ideas
    on how this new technology should play out.

    When Intel rejected the whole notion of general-purpose computing on
    graphics processing units (GPGPU) at the spring 2007 IDF meeting with
    its announcement of its upcoming Larrabee product line, the digerati
    began to buzz about what the future might hold for the GPU. For those
    who might not have heard about it, Larrabee is Intel's answer to the
    programmable GPU, the technology that is bringing GPGPU to the masses.

    The Larrabee architecture could be characterized as the anti-GPU
    entry. The overall approach is an attempt to evolve the CPU into a
    terascale data parallel engine. According to Intel, Larrabee will be a
    manycore (i.e., more than 8 cores) device and will be based on a
    subset of the IA instruction set with some extra GPU-like instructions
    thrown in. Intel has not elaborated on how it intends to do this, but
    one could imagine super-sized SSE units with just enough x86 CPU
    silicon to enable general-purpose flow control and data access. The
    first product release will probably come in 2009, but Intel says it
    may have something to demo as early as next year.

    The idea behind Larrabee is to bring both traditional graphics
    processing and data parallel computing under the IA umbrella. I'm not
    going to talk about the traditional graphics side of the story here
    (I'll let the game weenies argue about the advantages of ray-tracing
    over rasterization.) What's interesting about Larrabee and its GPU
    brethren is the extent to which a graphics engine can become a general-
    purpose computing engine without compromising its performance.

    The combination of a data parallel engine with more of the general-
    purpose flexibility of a traditional CPU could offer a powerful model
    for scientific computing applications, which usually consist of an
    irregular mix of matrix math and other logic. One of the drawbacks of
    traditional GPUs is that they depend upon an accompanying CPU for
    virtually all of the non-vector logic. That's fine if the application
    divides neatly between a vector computing kernel and the rest of the
    application logic in such a way as to keep both types of processing
    engines busy. But if it doesn't, the software developer has to find a
    way to tease out enough parallelism for the GPU to make sending the
    vector data on a round trip from the CPU worthwhile. This will only
    get worse in the future, since chip-to-chip bus performance is not
    expected to keep pace with either CPU or GPU performance.

    The division of labor problem is at the heart of the GPGPU critique
    elaborated by Anwar Ghuloum, an engineer at Intel's Microprocessor
    Technology Lab. In a blog entry last week, The Problem(s) with GPGPU,
    he writes about some of the ramifications of the current CPU-GPU
    dichotomy:

    ecause of the underlying constraints of GPU architecture,
    oftentimes the program relies heavily on the CPU to manage the
    difficult parts of the control and data flow, as well as all the other
    (necessary) stuff like I/O, etc. Here's the problem with this, the CPU-
    GPU link is relatively lower performance, engendering relatively high
    latencies for CPU-GPU interactions (like using a CPU to handle an
    outer level loop that the GPU can't handle). This can have a
    devastating effect on performance.

    Ghuloum is not explicitly making a pitch for Larrabee here. He's
    really questioning the validity of the GPGPU programming approach,
    which he believes is too narrowly defined to exploit all avenues of
    data parallelism. In a previous blog post, Ghuloum makes a case for
    Ct, a language Intel is developing that supports a more general-
    purpose, deterministic parallel programming model. While Ct assumes no
    specific architecture, the underlying model he's describing seems to
    point to a more generalized parallel processing architecture, like
    Larrabee.

    NVIDIA offers a more traditional approach to GPGPU. Its Tesla product
    line and CUDA C-programming environment were specifically developed to
    deliver GPU computing to the HPC market. The current Tesla products,
    released in June 2007, are based on the G80 architecture but packaged
    in form factors that are geared toward high performance computing
    setups, both workstations and servers. Host communication is done via
    PCI Express (PCIe).

    There's plenty of low-hanging fruit to be had with Tesla. Seismic
    analysis, medical diagnostics, molecular modeling and other such
    applications can realize performance increases of one or two orders of
    magnitude from this type of GPU acceleration. The next generation of
    Tesla offerings are expected to support double precision floating
    point. This will expand the GPGPU application domain even more, since
    64-bit floating point is the de facto standard for scientific
    computing.

    NVIDIA may eventually move its high performance computing Tesla line,
    or its descendents, in the same direction as Larrabee. But unlike
    Intel, NVIDIA starting point is the GPU, and it has no in-house CPU to
    draw from, so the path is bound to be different. For now, NVIDIA is
    content to exploit its lead in the GPGPU arena, especially since its
    nearest competitor, AMD, is still in the process of putting its GPU
    computing strategy together.

    At one time, AMD seemed to be ready to take advantage of the renewed
    interest in GPGPU. Soon after the company acquired ATI in July 2006,
    it launched its "Stream Computing" strategy, with the idea of
    leveraging ATI's GPUs and AMD's HyperTransport interconnect
    technology. The company's first GPGPU platform consisted of a PCIe-
    connected ATI R580 GPU bundled with their "Close to the Metal"
    software development kit. But it's not clear how many of these
    platforms have been sold, and AMD hasn't talked much about stream
    computing since 2006.

    Over the past year, the company has struggled against Intel's
    onslaught of new x86 technology and aggressive chip pricing. If that
    wasn't enough of a distraction, NVIDIA's foray into the GPGPU arena
    seemed to catch AMD off-guard. Even if the company's initial GPU plans
    have slipped, AMD's long-term commitment to marry its two
    architectures remains. But with Intel and NVIDIA forging ahead, time
    is no longer on AMD's side.

    The first instance of AMD's upcoming Fusion processor, which
    integrates a CPU and GPU on the same die, is at least a year away and
    is intended for the consumer market (notebooks). If successful, later
    generations of Fusion will almost certainly target HPC, and are likely
    to resemble a Cell processor architecture, with multiple CPU and GPU
    cores. Chip level CPU-GPU integration offers a number of advantages
    over discrete components, namely increased energy efficiency and
    better communication bandwidth and latency (HyperTransport versus
    PCIe). It's not the Larrabee model, but it offers the same advantage
    of using an x86 base to create a platform with much greater
    capabilities for data parallelism. AMD is also likely to offer
    discrete GPU products for high-end computing, but no roadmap has been
    publicized.

    Like Intel, AMD has hinted at adding GPU-type instructions to the x86
    ISA to allow software to work seamlessly with the graphics engines via
    a standard compiler/runtime. If AMD and Intel were on speaking terms,
    they could forge a common GPU ISA, which would be much appreciated by
    the GPGPU ecosystem. It could also serve to blunt NVIDIA's lead, and
    probably force the company to adopt what would be an industry-standard
    GPU interface. In the short term, standards are unlikely. Everyone
    involved has their own vision of how the GPU should evolve into its
    new role.

    This is one reason why high-level software environments for parallel
    programming are needed. While the Ct language looks promising, it's
    still in the research stage. (I'm guessing we'll soon be hearing more
    about this Intel.) Today, RapidMind offers a high-level software
    platform that allows developers to exploit data parallelism on a
    variety of hardware architectures, including NVIDIA and AMD GPUs, the
    Cell BE, and soon, x86 CPUs. The RapidMind platform has been generally
    available for less than a year, but has already managed to attract
    over 1,000 developers.

    Given the asymmetric capabilities of the different chip vendors and
    the immaturity of the GPGPU software ecosystem, it's too early to make
    predictions on the future of GPUs for general-purpose computing. What
    seems more certain is that proprietary vector processor-based
    supercomputers, like the one just announced by NEC this week, will
    soon be edged out by commodity-based systems that contain the
    equivalent vector smarts. Whether these machines turn out to be based
    on double precision GPUs, GPU-CPU hybrids, SIMD-enhanced CPUs, Cell BE
    processors, FPGAs, or SIMD ASICs, remains to be seen.

    http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/1856011.html
    NV55, Oct 31, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Onyx IR2
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    249
    Onyx IR2
    Jun 22, 2007
  2. NV55
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    261
  3. NV55
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    302
  4. NV55
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    268
    Chris Thomasson
    Oct 31, 2007
  5. NV55
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    549
Loading...

Share This Page