Procrastinato said:
@Squilliam: You realize that GPUs are basically Cell-esque processors, right, only without any sort of cache whatsoever? If anything, GPUs will evolve toward the Cell, if they are to accomplish anything serious outside of the embarrassingly parallel task of rendering. All GPUs are, are a load of specialized CISC instructions, in a large number of pipelines that are not co-dependant (as processor pipes usually have to be). Imagining that the Cell can evolve to have dozens of SPEs, and do the work of a GPU is reasonable. Imagining that GPUs can accomplish the work of the Cell, without a large caching mechanism, or a dependant ordering in their instruction pipeline, is folly. GPUs are specialized hardware. Removing that specialization only turns them into a processor much more like the Cell. |
Actually IIRC the level of cache in a modern GPU is measured in the hundred of kilobytes at least. The real difference is in cache coherency of which there isn't much. A GPU is divided into processing units which are again further divided. X number of ALUs -> X number of texturing units -> X number raster units along with the required level of cache = one processing unit. Each processing unit can work on one thread. I believe that AMD groups their ALUs into 8s with one left over for redundancy.
I really do doubt that long term the Cell architecture is going to recieve nearly the same level of investment as the GPU architectures from Nvidia, AMD and maybe Intel. This is both in hardware R+D and software development and the GPU does pose a serious threat to many of the markets where the Cell processor excels in. Once every computer has a CPU with a programmable DX11+ GPU attached its likely game over, and at present its another X86 situation in the marketplace. Also its doubtful that the Cell can achieve nearly the same level of performance per mm^2 or watt as a GPU in GPU specialised tasks in the future.
Tease.
