Recent content by Rakehell

And GPUs are becoming even better at graphics than that. In addition, they're becoming better at things that were once CPUs tasks like physics and video encoding.

Saying Intel GPUs are slow makes one a fanboy? You're on the defense tonight.

And here you create an imaginary problem of a generational gap that completely misses my point.

Of course I meant high-performance CPUs in personal computers. Your mouse can't run OpenGL.

Ever since Intel found out we were never going to hit 10GHz, they started pushing out 2, 4, 8-core CPUs. That's parallel computing. Physics, video, AI, graphics, scientific simulations, and pretty much anything requiring a fast processor all run better on a GPU. I think in 20 years, computers...

All any processor can do is various arithmetic functions. PhysX cards filled a niche because compute shaders didn't exist back then. If you aren't using shaders, then you've missed the point of ES 2.0.

Ageia no longer has PhysX because Nvidia bought them. And the PPU was redundant from the beginning because GPUs were already good at physics. CPUs aren't good at graphics.

So that's how they were able to get "comparable framerates" to the GT 650M.

With that many cores you're only good at running parallel code. See the Intel Xeon Phi which competes not against the Opteron, but the Nvidia Tesla.

So graphics should not be done on a chip that is designed from the ground up to render graphics? When you say complexity is better, I'm guessing you mean something like ray tracing, but even that is moving to the GPU.