3 ms·
Hm, good point. But couldn't you say the same thing about CUDA? There is an overhead involved in shunting data to and from the cores ... but the nature of the w
by rusk 7y ago
Hm, good point. But couldn't you say the same thing about CUDA? There is an overhead involved in shunting data to and from the cores ... but the nature of the work being done, and the massive parallelism, mean the overall end-to-end volume of throughput increases dramatically.
I don't know enough about audio processing to answer your specific question ... but processing network traffic for instance, you have the opportunity to "do things" with traffic. For instance partially decode PDUs to see if they interest you, and then pass them on to user-land for more in-depth processing if so ...
EDIT I think you're thinking in terms exclusively of `mapping` operations, but this kind of thing can be great for `reducing` or filtering.
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y agoThere's bandwidth and there's latency. CUDA has the bandwidth, but not the latency, for generalizable low latency audio processing.
- jancsika 7y agoIt could still be considered low latency by adding the constraint that all use cases are in the category of call-and-response musical forms. :)