5 ms·
I also disagree. The main problem is much simpler: they cost too much for fundamental reasons. The die-size for an FPGA that would have equivalent power of an
by jhallenworld 7y ago
I also disagree. The main problem is much simpler: they cost too much for fundamental reasons. The die-size for an FPGA that would have equivalent power of an Intel CPU or Nvidia GPU would be huge and expensive.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Traster 7y agoThat's simply not right. The FPGA in your NIC is much more powerful for packet processing than any CPU or GPU. Yes, the CPU is better at being a CPU- but that's just a matter of using the right tool for the job.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- aseipp 7y agoWhat does "equivalent power" even mean? It's completely useless without any qualifiers or specific metrics/goals. My Nvidia GPU also doesn't run x86 programs at the speed of my desktop, but I never expected it to. It's true in the vacuous sense only.
- jhallenworld 7y agoThey are all Turing machines, all that matters is can I run my algorithm at higher performance than equivalent priced conventional solutions.
- rowanG077 7y agoThis is incredibly naive. There are algorithm where CPU but GPU easily. There are also algorithms where a GPU beats a CPU easily. There are also algorithms where an FPGA beats a GPU and a CPU easily. You simply can't say x is better then y in general. They all have their own domains.