/prog/ - Single Chip GPU+CPU?

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 2:28

So why there are no tighter integration between CPU and GPU? Like for example making GPU capabilities a part of x86 architecture?

IIRC, long ago FPU was a separate unit too.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 2:34

adapteva parallella.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:04

it's getting closer.. amd's apus i think are already cpu + gpgpu ... don't know how far behind intel is, but probably not very ^^

you'd think there'd be plenty enough room in the new 64-bit instruction sets for both cpu and gpu instructions.. maybe just that stream processors don't quite work as fully fledged general purpose cpus yet..

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:16

>>3
Retard-kun, abusing ellipsis is a sign of an overall bad writing style.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:28

>>4
you should've see'n the draft' ^^

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:34

>>3
x86 is crowded as fuck. There are already 4-byte opcodes and tons of prefixes.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:36

>>5
i'd hax your anus

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:53

>>3
Using high latency stream processors for CPU tasks would be retarded. The idea is to just share address space, using main CPUs to help former GPUs with non-embarrassingly parallel tasks.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:08

Yes, integrate everything. First, combine CPUs with GPUs. Next, solder CPUs to mobos. Solder RAM to mobos too. Then abandon conventional modular desktop hardware and sell nothing but mobile devices which can't be upgraded or repaired through third party means.

Yes, goyim, give us your money!

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:22

http://www.mini-itx.com/

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:23

>>9
Mobos are for geeks. Users want CPU + some USB/bluetooth ports for I/O. RAM could to be integrated into CPU.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:30

>>10
Is the firmware open source? Does it even have a BIOS?

Name: >>1010 2013-02-18 4:33

>>11
nah, geeks use overpriced things like these:
https://www.gumstix.com/store/packs.php

>>2
Lol their server is down.

>>9
Well, it is what customer wants. How else do you upgrade newer, smaller, better tech and make it portable enough for customers on the go?

Name: 12 2013-02-18 4:35

Agh, fuck, I forgot the link:
http://apc.io/products/

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:35

>>12, >>13
and yes, they have BIOS, closed firmware.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:41

>>14
You fucking answered your own question:
Engineering Resources [/o]
Download APC's kernel, bootloader, and other engineering reference material. [/o]
Visit the APC Library [/o]
http://apc.io/library/ [/o]
If you would like a copy of the GPL source code contained in this product shipped on a CD, for a charge which is no more than the cost of preparing and mailing the CD to you, please email help@apc.io. [/o]

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:41

>>15
Oy vey.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 5:14

>>16
a copy of the GPL source code contained in this product
If their BIOS is not GPL'd, then it doesn't have to be on the CD.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 5:46

>>6
x86 is indeed a frankensteinian clusterfuck, much like most PC architecture itself.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 6:43

>>9
As long as the drivers remain free, it doesn't matter. There will always be uses for such hardware as long as the software is free.

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 7:06

>>6
waiting to see your cpu at opencores.org

Single Chip GPU+CPU?

1 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 2:28

2 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 2:34

3 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:04

4 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:16

5 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:28

6 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:34

7 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:36

8 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:53

9 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:08

10 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:22

11 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:23

12 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:30

13 Name: >>1010 2013-02-18 4:33

14 Name: 12 2013-02-18 4:35

15 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:35

16 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:41

17 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:41

18 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 5:14

19 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 5:46

20 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 6:43

21 Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 7:06

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 2:28

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 2:34

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:04

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:16

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:28

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:34

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:36

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 3:53

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:08

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:22

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:23

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:30

Name: >>1010 2013-02-18 4:33

Name: 12 2013-02-18 4:35

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:35

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:41

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 4:41

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 5:14

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 5:46

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 6:43

Name: Anonymous 2013-02-18 7:06