Sorry (not entirely sure why you coded the other method then).Originally Posted by Drwho?
See also http://gmplib.org/cgi-bin/gmp_calc.pl?expr=1000000!
Well under a second. (I didn't think a Java implementation could be the fastest going).
Sorry (not entirely sure why you coded the other method then).
See also http://gmplib.org/cgi-bin/gmp_calc.pl?expr=1000000!
Well under a second. (I didn't think a Java implementation could be the fastest going).
Last edited by David F; 08-30-2009 at 02:58 PM. Reason: Fixed link (thanks [XC] riptide)
Ya. Remember as the shader count goes up, things get interesting. Also the shader clocks plus the Vram memory speed and latency is going to be critical.
Ya.... http://gmplib.org/cgi-bin/gmp_calc.pl?expr=500000000000
500000000000! is also under a second.
Infact 50000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000! is also under a second.
Its a broken site.
Well, I am not doing what many other algorithm are doing, I do not Store the previous known n! in a table file ... I beleive http://gmplib.org/cgi-bin/gmp_calc.pl?expr=500000000000 does
I am writing a program that will really do all the calculation.
DrWho, The last of the time lords, setting up the Clock.
You're missing the !. With the ! it says "expression required too much memory to evaluate". (For me, at any rate).Ya.... http://gmplib.org/cgi-bin/gmp_calc.pl?expr=500000000000
500000000000! is also under a second.
Ah right. In your link the "!" was outside....
http://gmplib.org/cgi-bin/gmp_calc.pl?expr=2000000!
The result of executing 2000000! is:
computation took 1526 ms
result is about 11733474 digits, not printing it
Cursed vbulletin URL parsers...Ah right. In your link the "!" was outside....
But it does kind of make all the "3 minutes on CPU CUDA v.s. 1 minute on GPU" arguments look a little silly, doesn't it?
I know.... sssshhhh. Don't tell Dr. Who though.
well, it is all about the funny GPGPU claims ...
This is nVidia 1000X faster than CPU raytracing ... lol ... do i need to add something ?
but ssssshhhhh, don't say anybody ... Raytracing is suppose to look like this:
lol
DrWho, The last of the time lords, setting up the Clock.
Ya it is very funny....
I need to give Elcomosoft Wireless Security Advisor a try on my 4870. Seems to work well with ATI hardware.
Core i7 2600K@4.6Ghz| 16GB G.Skill@2133Mhz 9-11-10-28-38 1.65v| ASUS P8Z77-V PRO | Corsair 750i PSU | ASUS GTX 980 OC | Xonar DSX | Samsung 840 Pro 128GB |A bunch of HDDs and terabytes | Oculus Rift w/ touch | ASUS 24" 144Hz G-sync monitor
it is funny but what else can nvidia say? our gpu are 10-20 times faster and you have to have mad skills to achieve this. by the way you might want to check out renderants.every raytracing demo on cuda zone sucks.
Works very well on GPU my friend. You see. the lesson we are learning here today is that to speak in absolute terms is wrong regarding CUDA, ATi Stream or X86 based CPU's. The thing is... and I know Dr. Who will agree, is that CUDA/GPU based vid. encoding might be bad for high end stuff... and plenty of things that GPU can't do... BUT... there are plenty of things a GPU can do.... and can do very fast in the field of computing, besides rendering games etc.
I think we find that CPUs and GPUs work well together to handle complex tasks that take advantage of each of their strengths. OpenCL will use both GPUs and CPUs at the same time and that is something to look forward to. Also a company called Caustic is using both CPUs and GPUs to simultaneously accelerate ray-tracing.
To further illustrate my point, take out your GPU and try to run Crysis. Then reinstall your GPU and take out your CPU and try to run Crysis. Seems we've been divvying up workloads in applications since the GPU hit the scene. Why should future apps that take advantage of computer shaders be any different?
Core i7 2600K@4.6Ghz| 16GB G.Skill@2133Mhz 9-11-10-28-38 1.65v| ASUS P8Z77-V PRO | Corsair 750i PSU | ASUS GTX 980 OC | Xonar DSX | Samsung 840 Pro 128GB |A bunch of HDDs and terabytes | Oculus Rift w/ touch | ASUS 24" 144Hz G-sync monitor
The most funny of all, an SSD increases more the performance the score on the big industry benchmarks than upgrading to a discret graphic card ... hehehe ... something to think about ...
Then, when you plug the SSD, the increase is mostly CPU related ...
Francois
PS: I hope you noted the humours tone.
DrWho, The last of the time lords, setting up the Clock.
... is your blog link in your sig. You say here it took 3 hours to do the factorial code, but in your blog you say it took 6 hours.
well, I putted this program together in 6 hours,
yes ... 6 hours was with Threading.... is your blog link in your sig. You say here it took 3 hours to do the factorial code, but in your blog you say it took 6 hours.
DrWho, The last of the time lords, setting up the Clock.
Indeed. Credits go to OCZ for that.
http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3631Indeed. Credits go to OCZ for that.
DrWho, The last of the time lords, setting up the Clock.
Exactly...well, it is all about the funny GPGPU claims ...
This is nVidia 1000X faster than CPU raytracing ... lol ... do i need to add something ?
but ssssshhhhh, don't say anybody ... Raytracing is suppose to look like this:
lol
So you're impressed by a comparison between a finished CPU screenshot and a shot of a GPU doing it in almost real-time (something a CPU can't even dream of)? Don't let other people think for you my friend. There's no difference in quality between CPU and GPU ray-tracing, just speed. Anybody who says different is intentionally talking bull or simply doesn't know what they're talking bout.Exactly...
yeah, why cant people be happy that we have SOME kind of real time raytracing. its new and will be expanding very rapidly in the next few years. one screenshot took minutes to hours, the other was done in milliseconds. there were demos of raytracing were the final results looked identical to cpu renders, and it looked like it took 3 seconds to get a "perfect" frame.
exactly.
its just a bunch of number crunching.
OpenCL tutorial (video)
http://www.macresearch.org/files/opencl/Episode_2.m4v
http://www.macresearch.org/opencl_episode2
these are some pretty awesome gpgpu numbers:
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/...?qtype=osstats
its a pity my i7 only gets 24 gigaflops.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks