>> ^jimnms:
If your games are running slow, a lot of the time upgrading the video card will help. Take my system, it's almost 3 years old, a 2.2GHz AMD 64 X2 with a Geforce 7800GT. It could barely play BioShock on the lowest settings. After the GPU upgrade I can now play BioShock with all settings maxed and get higher FPS than the old GPU on the lowest settings.


That's true, it often will help, but not always. My brother upgraded his video card recently only to find that his CPU was creating the bottleneck for him and not his GPU. That's the myth that I worry this video spreads.

>> ^spoco2:
The video card in my pc here...(8800 GTS) has 96 processors, and the latest GTX 280 has, you guessed it, 280 processors.

Actually the GTX 280 has 240 processing cores, the GTX 260 which I just bought has 192.


>> ^Aemaeth:
I understand all this, I understand what kind of point they were trying to make, but everyone who would grasp that from this video already KNOWS that. Anyone who didn't would just see "wow, video cards are WAY faster than processors. If my PC games are running slow, I just need a faster video card."

If your games are running slow, a lot of the time upgrading the video card will help. Take my system, it's almost 3 years old, a 2.2GHz AMD 64 X2 with a Geforce 7800GT. It could barely play BioShock on the lowest settings. After the GPU upgrade I can now play BioShock with all settings maxed and get higher FPS than the old GPU on the lowest settings.

So... it's easier to break up the work load of a GPU than a CPU?

>> ^xgabex:
>> ^budzos:
Please be serious. It'd be awesome if you were that dumb.

Seems needlessly vicious. Not everyone is a computer wiz.


That's the thing: I actually am a computer whiz.

Anyway, I understand all that, but nothing here explains that. All it says, as I explained to budzos, is CPU vs. GPU, not that rendering is involved or anything else. This creates the message that GPU's are just plain faster and not just at rendering graphics. Also note that this is from NVision.

CPU's with 8 cores are now hitting the market. The reason for this is because they have been hitting the peak of current architecture on single-core chips and still wanted to expand. The reason GPU's have been doing this for a while and not CPU's is because GPU's have a different functions than CPU's do. GPU's tend to do fairly simple floating-point equations (but a LOT of them), that's why you can fit 280 parallel stream onto a card like that. On the other hand, any other type of work is better calculated by the CPU. I understand all this, I understand what kind of point they were trying to make, but everyone who would grasp that from this video already KNOWS that. Anyone who didn't would just see "wow, video cards are WAY faster than processors. If my PC games are running slow, I just need a faster video card."

Bottom line: I get the idea, I just think it's badly presented, but still kinda cool to see that paintball gun.

A video that was actually MADE by the slow motion replay!

Awesome.

and
"Cool project, but seems like propaganda to me. Why is that a GPU vs. a CPU?"

What it's showing is the difference between serial and parallel computing. Currently the most we have in consumer CPUs (the Central Processing Unit inside your computer), is 4 cores working together. The video card in my pc here...(8800 GTS) has 96 processors, and the latest GTX 280 has, you guessed it, 280 processors... that's SERIOUS parallel processing.

So, this demo is Bang on the money.

And brilliant!

>> ^budzos:
Please be serious. It'd be awesome if you were that dumb.


Seems needlessly vicious. Not everyone is a computer wiz.

If it's from an Nvidia conference then I guess I am a bit of an ass because it's somewhat computer related and I suppose actually supposed to demonstrate the power of GPUs. I was just being snarky though, not trying to debate soundly.

In reply to this comment by Aemaeth:
I get the similarity, I just think the presentation sucks. Trust me: I remember when the first 3d accelerators hit the market, I know the difference between GPU and CPU rendering. The reason I say it seems like propaganda is because first of all, you are the first person to use the term rendering. The video title or captions in the video doesn't say GPU Vs. CPU video rendering, it just says, "GPU vs. CPU". Second, realize this is from NVision: nVidia's annual conference. Third, because of the way it is presented it makes it seem like they are trying to say that graphics processors are just plain faster than central processors.

I get the similarity, I just think the presentation sucks. Trust me: I remember when the first 3d accelerators hit the market, I know the difference between GPU and CPU rendering. The reason I say it seems like propaganda is because first of all, you are the first person to use the term rendering. The video title or captions in the video doesn't say GPU Vs. CPU video rendering, it just says, "GPU vs. CPU". Second, realize this is from NVision: nVidia's annual conference. Third, because of the way it is presented it makes it seem like they are trying to say that graphics processors are just plain faster than central processors.

I appreciate criticism for my comments, but not when I get it in the form of an unfounded statement that really says nothing objective at all. Saying, "you must be joking" is really not an argument at all.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Sure. It's dumb because of two things. First, a demonstration that GPU rendering is faster than CPU rendering is not "propaganda". It's a fact that GPU rendering is much faster. Do you also say that videos are "banned" when they are pulled from the air by the company who created them?

Second, the poster is making a joke. The presentation is not related to computers at all. If you know what "GPU rendering" means, which you must if you think this is "propaganda", I don't see how you can miss that painting with one gun is like rendering with the CPU, and painting with a 1000 nozzles at once is like rendering with the GPU. See now I feel dumb just for explaining it.

In reply to this comment by Aemaeth:
I'd love to hear the explanation for this comment.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Cool project, but seems like propaganda to me. Why is that a GPU vs. a CPU?

Please be serious. It'd be awesome if you were that dumb.

Sure. It's dumb because of two things. First, a demonstration that GPU rendering is faster than CPU rendering is not "propaganda". It's a fact that GPU rendering is much faster. Do you also say that videos are "banned" when they are pulled from the air by the company who created them?

Second, the poster is making a joke. The presentation is not related to computers at all. If you know what "GPU rendering" means, which you must if you think this is "propaganda", I don't see how you can miss that painting with one gun is like rendering with the CPU, and painting with a 1000 nozzles at once is like rendering with the GPU. See now I feel dumb just for explaining it.

In reply to this comment by Aemaeth:
I'd love to hear the explanation for this comment.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Cool project, but seems like propaganda to me. Why is that a GPU vs. a CPU?

Please be serious. It'd be awesome if you were that dumb.

I'd love to hear the explanation for this comment.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Cool project, but seems like propaganda to me. Why is that a GPU vs. a CPU?

Please be serious. It'd be awesome if you were that dumb.

Cool project, but seems like propaganda to me. Why is that a GPU vs. a CPU?

Please be serious. It'd be awesome if you were that dumb.

Cool project, but seems like propaganda to me. Why is that a GPU vs. a CPU?

spoco, here you can see a live demo of the software running in a browser. It's still not completely smooth, but definitely working. BUT apparently it uses 3 GPU's to make these images. So a Second Life type application would be very expensive with today's technology. But playing super beautiful games with a low end computer might be possible. Consider this, if you have an expensive GPU you only use it when you play games, the rest of the time it's pretty much idle. Now three GPU's can then provide content for a lot of users if they don't play at the same time. With a moderate subscription fee, or a pay by the hour fee, I think this would be possible. With further scaling of technology, maybe cell like super multi-core processing the costs can come down significantly.

If I had a low end machine I wouldn't mind paying to play a beautiful version of say GTA without having to upgrade my computer for $1500. And having to upgrade again a year later, etc.

I wouldn't exactly classify this video as Lies, but very optimistic and some years into the future. It needs a lot of development, but I long for the day that I don't have to upgrade to play the newest games.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'fastra, 9800, GX2, Lian Li, Happy Geeks' to 'fastra, 9800, GX2, Lian Li, Happy Geeks, tomography, antwerp, supercomputer, gpu' - edited by lucky760

Check out NVIDIA's CUDA language that lets developers program the GPU. They give examples of many other tasks that have been done, but basically some tasks lend themselves to parallel execution more than others. It's a good thing these guys in Antwerp didn't assume it couldn't be done since it wasn't being done!