OK both help the CPU with physics calculations and double-precision floating point. So which does have the upper-hand other than the price.
Nvidia CUDA VS. AMD Stream processing
What is AMD's answer to Nvidia's Tesla?
Otherwise, performance for those chip API's should be compared the same as the GPU's are compared. What I mean is that the graphics performance (though not totally encompassing everything possible by the API's) should be a good indicator to the general computing capabilities. And anyway, the OpenCL standard makes them comparable, so that should be a starting point to search for available or upcoming benchmarks.
Otherwise, performance for those chip API's should be compared the same as the GPU's are compared. What I mean is that the graphics performance (though not totally encompassing everything possible by the API's) should be a good indicator to the general computing capabilities. And anyway, the OpenCL standard makes them comparable, so that should be a starting point to search for available or upcoming benchmarks.
CUDA is more widespread while Stream is not yet. A lot of apps take advantage of CUDA when compared to STREAM.
I really think a lot of work should be done on GPGPU. GPUs cost a lot. They should be able to process tasks other than games.
Again, parallel programming is not as easy as sequential. Let's see what code writers can do !
I really think a lot of work should be done on GPGPU. GPUs cost a lot. They should be able to process tasks other than games.
Again, parallel programming is not as easy as sequential. Let's see what code writers can do !
Yeah Nvidia has a lot of support from developers but i think we should see what Intel's Larrabee will do.
- Edited
Intel has dropped plans for Larrabee as its GPU. Don't know what that means to you, but I don't see it as a flamboyant success.
At least they would make it integrated on the motherboard and lets give Intel a chance on the gaming market.