3 ms·
“It’s likely just poorly written software” sounds completely glib to me, it sounds like an intuitive leap rather than a reasoned-out conclusion. Again, it soun
by klodolph 5y ago
“It’s likely just poorly written software” sounds completely glib to me, it sounds like an intuitive leap rather than a reasoned-out conclusion.
Again, it sounds like an unusual workload. I don’t see why performance must scale with some spec in any particular straightforward way—I think we all remembered seeing workloads that would get faster once you added more CPU cores, then slower once you kept adding CPU cores—because back in the day, most of us didn’t have experience with systems that had lots of CPUs.
GPUs are optimized to suit common workloads and, quite predictably, aren’t optimized to suit uncommon workloads. Modern graphics uses a mix of CPU and GPU work. The back-and-forth, especially returning results from the GPU to the CPU, has historically caused all sorts performance problems.
We don’t have the explanation for why here, but I see no reason to conclude that it must be poorly written software just because the performance characteristics are unintuitive.
- terafo 5y ago> GPUs are optimized to suit common workloads and, quite predictably, aren’t optimized to suit uncommon workloads. That doesn't explain why there are such drastic performance differences between GPUs on same uarch. It shouldn't perform better on clearly worse GPUs. > We don’t have the explanation for why here, but I see no reason to conclude that it must be poorly written software just because the performance characteristics are unintuitive. I'm not saying that it `must` be poorly written software. I'm just saying that it's `likely`, given niche nature of this software. If performance is affected by some unusual factor they have to clearly indicate that.