> I would additionally argue that aside from cost, because of the speed exhibited by such processors, many algorithms that do not naturally fit in the current m

> I would additionally argue that aside from cost, because of the speed exhibited by such processors, many algorithms that do not naturally fit in the current model are in fact faster on the modern CPU than the hypothetical GP-PU anyway. Yup. I think the article's initial assumption of what a general purpose processor looks like ignores history. We've tried to build those kinds of processors... and what we've converged on is processors that are good at these particular specialized operations, because that actually tends to work better for most jobs. Not that there aren't exceptions... you can look at FPGA's to get an idea of what they are, and the fact that FPGA's are only used in a bunch of very specialized areas suggest that modern CPU's aren't THAT far off on being reasonable optimal for a truly varied set of tasks.