|
However we did decide to measure the processing time to see if there was any advantage to using CUDA even with our crude implementation, or on the other hand if was going to take long, exhaustive practice to get any real control over the use of the GPU. The test machine was our development box – a laptop computer with a Core 2 Duo T5450 and a GeForce 8600M GT, operating under Vista. It’s far from being a supercomputer, but the results are interesting since our test is not all that favorable to the GPU. It’s fine for Nvidia to show us huge accelerations on systems equipped with monster GPUs and enormous bandwidth, but in practice many of the 70 million CUDA GPUs existing on current PCs are much less powerful, and so our test is quite germane.
The results we got are as follows for processing a 2048x2048 image:
CPU 4 threads: 593 ms
GPU (8600M GT) blocks of 256 pixels: 109 ms
GPU (8600M GT) blocks of 128 pixels: 94 ms
GPU (8800GTX) blocks of 128 pixels / 256 pixels: 31 ms
....
The second notable observation is that even the slowest GPU implementation was nearly six times faster than the best-performing CPU version.
For more detail, please go to: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-cuda-gpu,1954-12.html
某厂和某厂的粉丝们还在为自己终于超越了对手2年前的科技而兴高采烈的时候,却没发现某长的一只脚已经跨进了另一个领域。
一等品GT200都拿去做Tesla了,二等品才拿来做成GTX280卖,残次品做260。 |
|