Is the CPU dead?

Posted on 10 Mar 2010 at 08:55

But that failure itself is highly suggestive of the limitations of GPU computing: Larrabee’s cores were more advanced than Nvidia’s stream processors, enabling them to perform more complex tasks – which also made them more expensive, more power-hungry, and harder to program.

For mainstream computing, though, Abel was happy to make clear that, so far as Intel’s concerned, the power of its CPUs is sufficient to make GPU computing irrelevant. “The CPU is at the forefront of the PC, and we believe it will remain there,” he affirmed.

“If someone wants to play games, they’ll get a discrete graphics card. But for transcoding, should I go buy a $200 card, or is my CPU good enough? From what we’ve seen, and what we’ve tested, the CPU is very competitive, delivering performance in some cases better than what Nvidia and AMD are able to deliver.”

So far as Intel’s concerned, the power of its CPUs is sufficient to make GPU computing irrelevant

There may be some value in DirectCompute, he conceded. “There may be special usages – niche areas where it might make sense. I’m not going to say ‘hey, that’s something that Intel will never support’. We think that today we have a very competitive solution, but we always try to best utilise all the resources on a processor. And if there may be creative ways to do that, we’ll certainly evaluate them.”

It’s a confident stance but, as Endpoint Technologies analyst Roger Kay notes, Intel can hardly say anything else. “Intel isn’t really in a position to produce a massively parallel processor,” Kay told PC Pro. “It needs more time to produce a chip with both the performance and power characteristics that will allow it to compete in the highly parallel computing space.”

The next round

It will be fascinating to see how Intel and Nvidia’s different strategies play out during 2010. But before we reach the endgame, both parties have a few more moves to play. Nvidia has already shown that CUDA is serious business on existing hardware, and Fermi is set to open up further GPU-based programming possibilities.

Intel, meanwhile, hopes to outflank GPU computing by continuing to beef up its processors, helping them handle the media tasks that are the bread and butter of discrete GPUs. “It was already announced that Sandy Bridge [Intel’s next-generation architecture, due for launch in 2011] will have Advanced Vector Extensions, which could greatly improve floating point performance,” confirmed Intel PR manager Radoslaw Walczyk.

“And we have some other stuff too, which we won’t talk about yet. But you can be sure that with new generations of hardware, Intel will introduce new technologies that will definitely benefit multimedia operations.”

Ultimately, though, whatever ends up on the desktop, there’s no doubt that GPU computing has changed the game forever. As Roger Kay concludes, “the man in the street won’t use GPU computing any time soon – but he’ll immediately enjoy the products of it: 3D animation effects done by major studios, drugs discovered using GPU computing and, since oil and gas companies will use it for exploration, perhaps even the price he pays for energy.”

Author: Darien Graham-Smith

1 2 3

Subscribe to PC Pro magazine. We'll give you 3 issues for £1 plus a free gift - click here

From around the web

User comments

They've Got a Point

I've never recommended upgrading the CPU in any slow machine I've ever came across in 100s of PC repairs.

Usually it's too little RAM, low hard drive space, poor configuration or poor graphics card that causes a bottle neck.

By john_coller on 10 Mar 2010

PcPRONvidia!

"a new range of graphics cards based on its innovative Fermi architecture" which would be the Fermi architecture that's 6 months late and given no one -that's NO ONE,- outside Nvidia has seen it, absolutely no one can say it is innovative, except a Nvidia rep, of course!

Just how much was PcPRO paid to publish this Nvidia ad???

By fingerbob69 on 10 Mar 2010

@fingerbob69 - I imagine the pro-intel stuff on pages two & three, was when the Nvidia advertising money ran out ;)

Overall a good article, but seeing that Cuda has been around for a while now, and its only applications seem to be video encoding and folding@home, maybe the CPU will be around for a while yet.

Also, surprised that no mention was made of Intel integrating GPUs onto some of its core i3/i5 processors. Perhaps convergence is the next step, rather then one or the other reigning supreme?

By pbryanw on 10 Mar 2010

Progression

There will always be change in technology that will lead to alterations in the way things are done.

Not so long ago the CPU was not good at mathematics and a Co-Processor run alongside it. The Co-Processors are now inside the CPU... and nobody really worried about the change.

The CPU meeting the GPU is not much different.

In the 70's and 80's [because only one calculation could be executed at a time] the horizon was "Transputers" where multiple calculations could be carried out at the same time. (We still are searching for perfection).

And on the horizon now is computation using lazer light and mirrors with the and an intention to build Quantum Computers.

At the end of the day what matters is that we get tasks completed correctly and speedily.

By lenmontieth on 10 Mar 2010

And another thing...

If you doubt the shocking bias of this article, consider the following:

"Move up to the high end and you find cards such as the Nvidia GTX 295 integrating a massive 480 cores"

The top end card at the moment, the one that puts the GTX295 in the shade, draws less power and has such modern innovations such as DX11 is the ATI 5970. Any feature writer worth his fee, in giving an example of something that is top end and of the now, would not quote as an example something that is last year's spec! Not least in a supposedly IMPARTIAL tech savvy magazine like PcPRO operating in an industry where last week's spec can be regarded as obsolete, let alone stuff that's over eight months old!

And pbrianw points out one helluva omission, a big pink elephant in the room. Intel's latest i3-530 cpu which brings the gpu to the cpu and is an example of the exact opposite happening to the point the article is making, in the real world, in 2010.

If PcPRO had any self respect, they would pull this shabby, shockingly biased and just poorly informed article forthwith.

By fingerbob69 on 10 Mar 2010

Future of netbooks is not ion it should be combined CPU-GPU=APU

What netbooks need is APU (Accelerated Processing Unit) that CPU and GPU on the same silicon. This means everything said about ion above + decrease in weight + less space + increased battery power which sums up = netbooks. That is idea and philosophy behind netbook. This article fails to realize this issue.

By HopeLESS on 12 Mar 2010

Something fishy here

So three pages about CPU & GPU, and barely 2 or 3 mentions about AMD, who have both solutions? Only one quote from an AMD rep? AMD is arguably producing the ultimate CPU vs. GPU solution, something which is a both a full x86 CPU and a full GPU, called Fusion, but that doesn't warrant a mention?

By bbbl67 on 18 Mar 2010

convergence

Without wishing to upset all of the Intel/AMD/Nvidia and every other CPU or GPU manufacturers out there (Yes that still includes you Matrox) I believe that the CPU and the GPU will converge to one general purpose chip in the near future that can schedule out processing and graphics tasks as it sees fit.This will be thumbnail sized and fit on a motherboard the size of a CD case.There that should make all of the fanboys happy what ever their alliance !

By Jaberwocky on 21 Mar 2010

Convergence - a blast from the past....

Multi-cpus on a single chip, with fast inter-cpu links = transputers.

ARM's approach of providing a customisable "core" may well be the way forward. It certainly works for low-powered, efficient devices....

By wittgenfrog on 14 Apr 2010

Leave a comment

You need to Login or Register to comment.