> NVIDIA Grace Hopper Superchip Finally, a computer optimised for COBOL.
You win the internet today
Nvidia Grace CPU
111–120 of 197 posts
Re: Nvidia Grace CPU
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder why Intel never had a really good go at GPU's? It seems strange, given the demand.
Discrete GPUs have historically been a relatively small and volatile niche compared to CPUs, it's only in the last few years that the market has seen extreme growth. edit: the market pretty much went from gaming as the primary pillar to gaming + HPC, which makes it far more attractive since you'd expect it to be much less cyclical and less price sensitive. Raja Koduri was hired in late 2017 to work on GPU related stu…
CUDA came out in 2007. Wikipedia puts the start of the GPU-driven 'deep learning revolution' in 2012 [1] and people have been putting GPUs into their supercomputers since 2012 as well [2]
I find it strange that Intel has basically just left the entire market to nvidia, despite having 10-15 years warning and running their own GPU division the whole time.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_learning#Deep_learning_re... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(supercomputer)
Re: Nvidia Grace CPU
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Discrete GPUs have historically been a relatively small and volatile niche compared to CPUs, it's only in the last few years that the market has seen extreme growth. edit: the market pretty much went from gaming as the primary pillar to gaming + HPC, which makes it far more attractive since you'd expect it to be much less cyclical and less price sensitive. Raja Koduri was hired in late 2017 to work on GPU related stu…
CUDA came out in 2007. Wikipedia puts the start of the GPU-driven 'deep learning revolution' in 2012 [1] and people have been putting GPUs into their supercomputers since 2012 as well [2] I find it strange that Intel has basically just left the entire market to nvidia, despite having 10-15 years warning and running their own GPU division the whole time . [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_learning#Deep_learning_r…
They created the Xeon Phi[1] for that niche. It was spun out of Larabee[2]. I presume they will be taking advantage of their coming GPU architecture for more going forward.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon_Phi
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrabee_(microarchitecture)
Re: Nvidia Grace CPU
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intel produced good, as in "cheap and always working", integrated GPUs. For great many tasks, they are adequate. I'm not a gamer, and if I needed to run some ML stuff, my laptop's potential discrete GPU won't be much help anyway.
Also, Intel has a history of producing or commissioning open-source drivers for its GPU. I like the peace of mind I get from knowing I'm not going to have to fight dirty for the privilege of getting my own GPU to do the work I bought it to perform.
Two of the three major GPU vendors have fully-supported open source drivers, arguably it's nvidia being the odd one out rather than anything else.
Re: Nvidia Grace CPU
#115heh, does Intel have any chance to catch up? They fell so far behind.
No. Intel worked out it needs to open its production capacity to other vendors. They will end up another ARM fab with a legacy x86-64 business strapped on the side. That's probably not a bad place to be really. I think x86-64 will fizzle out in about a decade.
I don't feel like ARM has serious technical advantages over x86-64 as an ISA, although it is cleaner and has more security features which is good. Isn't the main advantage just that it's easier to license ARM?
Once enough patents expire all ISAs are eventually equal, I'd think.
Re: Nvidia Grace CPU
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder why Intel never had a really good go at GPU's? It seems strange, given the demand.
Intel produced good, as in "cheap and always working", integrated GPUs. For great many tasks, they are adequate. I'm not a gamer, and if I needed to run some ML stuff, my laptop's potential discrete GPU won't be much help anyway.
While I view my Intel iGPU as a backup, I don't have any negative impressions about its performance like many gamers do. I have the 11900K which has an iGPU capable of 720P gaming. Which is quite remarkable to be honest considering it's integrated into my CPU. Cheap and "just works" is exactly how I view it, but they're getting better in the last 2 generations.
I can't find a new dGPU at MSRP so I'm going to see if the Intel Arc cards are more readily available, and if not, I'm probably going to part out my desktop and move permanently to using Intel NUCs. Mostly for the GPU contained within. It seems like the days of getting your hands on a dGPU are over, and I'm not fighting over them.
Re: Nvidia Grace CPU
#117Maybe it's just me, but it's just cool to see the CPU market competitive again for the first time since the late 90s.
[deleted]
Re: Nvidia Grace CPU
#118> NVIDIA Grace Hopper Superchip Finally, a computer optimised for COBOL.
[deleted]
Re: Nvidia Grace CPU
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Intel worked out it needs to open its production capacity to other vendors. They will end up another ARM fab with a legacy x86-64 business strapped on the side. That's probably not a bad place to be really. I think x86-64 will fizzle out in about a decade.
I don't feel like ARM has serious technical advantages over x86-64 as an ISA, although it is cleaner and has more security features which is good. Isn't the main advantage just that it's easier to license ARM? Once enough patents expire all ISAs are eventually equal, I'd think.
I feel much the same way. I've used both pretty extensively at this point, and I'm not sure if I'm a believer in either mentality. I'm hoping that RISC-V will be the one to blow my mind, though.
Re: Nvidia Grace CPU
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was pretty surprised by the low prices of m1 macbooks when even the lowest end models perform so much better than the high end of previous models. I'm sure Apple is spending less money on manufacturing them now that they're not going through Intel, but I would have expected them to just keep charging the same and eaten the profit margin themselves.
They are trying to establish the new architecture. Also you still need to shell out $2-3k to get something decent and practically start at $1.5k. I wouldn't call that cheap or even cheaper. What is the past difference you see?
I bought the 16GB air for 1000 and it's easily the best laptop I've ever owned. Fantastic value