Are GPUs the future of CPUs?
Kerrick Long is a geek who submitted the following question to me this weekend:
I’ve been thinking recently about the advances that chipset makers have been making with GPUs, and how the CPU market seems to be stagnant at the moment. Recently, ATI made the first GPU clocked at 1GHz available with the Radeon HD 4890, factory over-clocked. In addition, that same card has 800 stream processors, while most CPUs have only two or four cores. Those cards also use GDDR5 memory, consequently.
On the software side, Snow Leopard is integrating OpenCL into the Mac OS, allowing developers to harness the power of the GPU in applications that traditionally might’ve just used the CPU. CUDA from NVIDIA also allows C programmers to harness some of the power of their GPUs with the right compilers, wrappers, and drivers.
All of this combined makes me wonder if someday soon we might see the death of the CPU as we know it today, to be replaced by a closer relative of the GPU. If GPU clock speed caught up with CPU clock speeds, the benefits of parallel processing available to the GPU would be immense! I know that changing architectures on an OS level would be quite a task (considering that Microsoft and Apple are just now making the switch from the decades-old x86 architecture), but do you think it will happen? Could the CPU be on its way out the door?
GoToAssist lets you provide support to your friends or customers even when they aren't at home. By using the unattended support feature, you can fix their software issues, install their updates, or nearly anything else you would normally do on-site.





14 Comments
Bret Spector
May 17th, 2009
at 6:28pm
I think that that’s defiantly an interesting concept. I can see that happening though. In the future, I think that that’s going to happen sooner than we think…
DellMan94
May 17th, 2009
at 6:30pm
I agree with you Chris. I think the CPU will go the same way as the co-processor did years ago. I wouldn’t miss it if the cpu was phased out anyhow, personally.
Cheers!
DellMan94
Kerrick Long
May 17th, 2009
at 6:34pm
Wow, I feel honored!
Ninesvnsicks
May 17th, 2009
at 6:50pm
I have also often thought this very same thing it does make a lot of sense.
Oli Kenobi
May 17th, 2009
at 7:32pm
Definitely agree! I’ve been wondering since a couple of years why the CPU manufacturers haven’t already used some GPU technologies… it’s about time!
Sushy™
May 17th, 2009
at 7:36pm
The thing is that GPU’s are really cheap, it would be a market with really high demand and really low value. I don’t think Microsoft or Apple would take advantage of it, I can see Linux doing it since they are mostly open source. Besides, there are already 900 mhz machines that run windows (like netbooks do) and they only have one processor. It would be quite cool if they used each stream processor for each process you have running on a computer. That would make everything more live-like.
greene consulting
May 17th, 2009
at 7:41pm
oh the work I could do with card like that.
With Video cards not catching up with the CPUs we seen i wouldn’t be surprised that we see faster video cards before the years end . CPU get the push from wanting you systems fast for when ever work and the graphic cards took time as they were being used for gaming but now they are need for more than games . with the need for system for movies and TV effects the Mac is not seeing more growth but PC as well and Linux systems as well.
I one said 1979 that computer would be doing what model builders for movies did then. that computer graphics would take over building ting that look so real you could not tell.
I wrote that in March of 79 and used it 6 month later to make a request to study computer and art to be come computer graphic artist..i was turn down as they said no one would wast computers to do movie effects or to do art..Computer are for Science not art and to build buildings and things like that no one will own home computer that isn’t more a toy than a real computer..That was what was told in a letter that turn me down No one saw what could see that we were on the edge of change and with new graphic card as powerful as the one we now have we can do more than anything they at that college could ever dream
Lets a 1 GHz Processor with 3 gigs of ram on the card and the fast CPU you can buy and another 3 to 4 gigs or rams on your systems..the only thing that would limit you is your imagination and a bad OS lol
I like it ..I’ll wait till the Price is better but i get it.
GC
Str1f3
May 17th, 2009
at 8:05pm
I think so. It’s only a matter of time. Since the introduction of Intel multiple core processors, there have been very little performance improvements off the CPU. The GPU will one day replace it some kind of new chip architecture.
Yeah Maybe
May 17th, 2009
at 11:05pm
In 10 years maybe
seif
May 17th, 2009
at 11:15pm
i think its called GPGPU and APU, and Intell, AMD and Nvidia already on their way, the AMD Fusion, the Intel Larrabee, and Nvidia with entering the CPU wars.
also there is another branch, and that is the cell processors (used in PS3), it uses the CPU for managing the traffic and the Cells for Computational (8 cells, 1 for the OS, 1 is locked and the other 6 cells for applications with hyper-threading technology). its far more powerful than CPU’s.
so whether its GPGPU, APU, GPU with CUDA, or even cell processors. they all bring a huge computational power than now days PC’s, it will be a huge leap forward and the moor’s law will be broken
Justin Frodsham
May 18th, 2009
at 10:08am
I think you have it backwards. The GPU is the coprocessor that will go away. The GPU functions will be absorbed by the CPU. Every indication in the industry points to that. Why do you think AMD and NVIDIA are nervous about Larrabee? (whether they admit it or not)
Justin
May 20th, 2009
at 7:34pm
In the near future probably not, in the distant future, well probably not either. You have to understand some of the tough hurdles to overcome before GPUs can be considered an option as a CPU replacement. As far as floating point performance in calculations per second GPU’s are supreme but they aren’t meant to be as accurate as the onboard FPU of a traditional processor. The resulting quality of tasks performed by a good GPU are often sub-par compared to CPU generated results.
Once you have overcame that obstacle than you have to consider RD time which runs concurrently with CPU R&D. Companies are making leaps in bounds in architecture with the aid of huge die shrinks localized bus procedure such as onboard memory control. There is no doubt that parallel processing is the wave of the future but lets consider Intels 80 core prototype.
This isn’t to say there isn’t anything to be learned from massive parallel processing. Give me GPU raw computational power with traditional FPU accuracy and “I’ll buy that for a dollar” – Robocop
Tim Wernette
May 21st, 2009
at 9:05am
this may or may not happen.. 800 stream processors doesn’t by any means mean it is equivalent to 800 core processor! the way gpu’s operate is quite a bit different then a CPU. look at the applications now are having trouble taking advantage of only 4 cores. it’s hard to design a program to stream well. CPU’s are better for flow control related programs and GPU’s are better for raw calculations. unfortunatly for the gpu, most business/normal use software is flow control dominated. this MAY happen, may not. most likely the future will be something in between both of these technologies.
heey
May 25th, 2009
at 8:57am
heey greeme consulting, you grammar speek good well me am inpresed. me dont know why coledge turn yu down ? must be stuppd or somethin.