It's a nice discussions about computers of the future, but let's not drift off from the subject.

Has the bakerlab already thought about a GPU client?

---

It's not about frequency or the crunching power of the cpu.

Incorrect! For linear computation, it is. And that's what's going to drive consumer CPUs. I just don't see the performance of the family computer improving by 32x on a 32 core CPU. And despite the valiant and noble efforts of you dual-core DC record-breakers, DC is done mainly on common family PCs, not multicore servers. I can't see the gamily PC ever having 128 cores, but this evening you can drive to CompUSA and buy a video card with 128 general-purpose devices capable of running fluid dynamics equations independently.

-----
There were various discussions about Moore's observations on The Register and The Inquirer for the past few years on how "Moore's Law" was not being quoted right.

http://download.intel.com/research/silicon/moorespaper.pdf
Here's a pdf of Gordon's article that was linked to after Intel paid $10,000 for a mint copy of the issue of Electronics magazine that he'd written for.

Gordon's article deals with the size, cost, and number of transistors on a die; not the "horsepower" of the cpu.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2127129/gordon-moore-calls-law
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/13/moores_law_forty/
From an hour long phone interview with various reporters, House gets blamed for the cpu "horsepower" doubling every 18 months observation.

Regardless, things are improving at a wonderful rate for both cpus and gpus - and pretty soon, we'll have gpus providing the house's hot water if ATI & nVidia don't manage to lessen the power usage on their upcoming chips.

---

It's not about frequency or the crunching power of the cpu.

For linear computation, it is.

ACCK!

When I wrote the above, I wasn't referring to Moore's law!

The "it" in that sentence was the generic "it", as in: "What's it all about, Alfie?"

Yes, Moore's law refers to transistor count! See the graphic in the link I gave in my prev post! (Okay, here it is again):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Moore_Law_diagram_%282004%29.png/700px-Moore_Law_diagram_%282004%29.png

pretty soon, we'll have GPUs providing the house's hot water if ATI & nVidia don't manage to lessen the power usage on their upcoming chips.

OH my god, that's the funniest thing I've heard all year!

And we'll have to power them with a line we run from the OTHER side of the transformer up on the telephone pole...

---

Techno-Faye says techno "Hey!"
My home page:
http://www.myspace.com/150103974

I think they did this on purpose just to make me post another off-topic message here:

From the front page of today's washington post:

"Moore's Law extended in chip breakthrough"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/27/AR2007012700018.html

---

Techno-Faye says techno "Hey!"
My home page:
http://www.myspace.com/150103974

I think they did this on purpose just to make me post another off-topic message here:

From the front page of today's washington post:

"Moore's Law extended in chip breakthrough"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/27/AR2007012700018.html

it is sooooo funny, because IBM/AMD said : "wait wait!!! we have it too!!! in one year or more!!!"

on rosetta, it is too branchy for a GPU, the code does not like long pipelines, so, forget the GPUs !

who?