3 ms·
Shit, I did not realize GPUs packed such a tremendous performance advantage over CPUs (FLOPs wise). They seem to be several orders of magnitude ahead--that is p
by Derbasti 16y ago
Shit, I did not realize GPUs packed such a tremendous performance advantage over CPUs (FLOPs wise). They seem to be several orders of magnitude ahead--that is positively mindblowing!
And yet, all GPUs and CPUs of the whole world can just barely match one human brain (http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/02/adding-up-the-worlds-storage-and-computation-capacities.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/02/adding-up-the-wo...). If that's not mindblowing, then what?
- jules 16y agoThey compare instructions per second with nerve impulses per second. That's a pretty useless comparison. I'm sure that all GPUs and CPUs could simulate a human brain more quickly than a human brain could simulate all CPUs and GPUs.
- adrianN 16y agoI'd venture to say that depends strongly on the problem the brain is trying to solve and the problem the processors are trying to solve.
- abecedarius 16y agoIn the Whole Brain Emulation Roadmap there's a table of published guesses at computing requirements: most were in the range 10^14..10^18 FLOPS. (Plus a few outliers from people who think the brain does molecular-scale or quantum computing in microtubules.) The 500th biggest computer in the latest Top500 does around 3E13 FLOPS, while the top does 3E15 -- using GPUs, incidentally. Your link's on the high end of the range, though they're all kind of guessing. http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/3853/brain-emulation-roadmap-report.pdf http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/3... http://www.top500.org/list/2010/11/100 http://www.top500.org/list/2010/11/100
- postfuturist 16y agoLooks like about 1 order of magnitude, not several.