Simplest Possible Example to Show GPU Outperform CPU Using CUDA - cuda

Question

I am looking for the most concise amount of code possible that can be coded both for a CPU (using g++) and a GPU (using nvcc) for which the GPU consistently outperforms the CPU. Any type of algorithm is acceptable.
To clarify: I'm literally looking for two short blocks of code, one for the CPU (using C++ in g++) and one for the GPU (using C++ in nvcc) for which the GPU outperforms. Preferably on the scale of seconds or milliseconds. The shortest code pair possible.

Answer 1

First off, I'll reiterate my comment: GPUs are high bandwidth, high latency. Trying to get the GPU to beat a CPU for a nanosecond job (or even a millisecond or second job) is completely missing the point of doing GPU stuff. Below is some simple code, but to really appreciate the performance benefits of GPU, you'll need a big problem size to amortize the startup costs over... otherwise, it's meaningless. I can beat a Ferrari in a two foot race, simply because it take some time to turn the key, start the engine and push the pedal. That doesn't mean I'm faster than the Ferrari in any meaningful way.
Use something like this in C++:
#define N (1024*1024)
#define M (1000000)
int main()
{
float data[N]; int count = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
data[i] = 1.0f * i / N;
for(int j = 0; j < M; j++)
{
data[i] = data[i] * data[i] - 0.25f;
}
}
int sel;
printf("Enter an index: ");
scanf("%d", &sel);
printf("data[%d] = %f\n", sel, data[sel]);
}
Use something like this in CUDA/C:
#define N (1024*1024)
#define M (1000000)
__global__ void cudakernel(float *buf)
{
int i = threadIdx.x + blockIdx.x * blockDim.x;
buf[i] = 1.0f * i / N;
for(int j = 0; j < M; j++)
buf[i] = buf[i] * buf[i] - 0.25f;
}
int main()
{
float data[N]; int count = 0;
float *d_data;
cudaMalloc(&d_data, N * sizeof(float));
cudakernel<<<N/256, 256>>>(d_data);
cudaMemcpy(data, d_data, N * sizeof(float), cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
cudaFree(d_data);
int sel;
printf("Enter an index: ");
scanf("%d", &sel);
printf("data[%d] = %f\n", sel, data[sel]);
}
If that doesn't work, try making N and M bigger, or changing 256 to 128 or 512.

Answer 2

A very, very simple method would be to calculate the squares for, say, the first 100,000 integers, or a large matrix operation. Ita easy to implement and lends itself to the the GPUs strengths by avoiding branching, not requiring a stack, etc. I did this with OpenCL vs C++ awhile back and got some pretty astonishing results. (A 2GB GTX460 achieved about 40x the performance of a dual core CPU.)
Are you looking for example code, or just ideas?
Edit
The 40x was vs a dual core CPU, not a quad core.
Some pointers:
Make sure you're not running, say, Crysis while running your benchmarks.
Shot down all unnecessary apps and services that might be stealing CPU time.
Make sure your kid doesn't start watching a movie on your PC while the benchmarks are running. Hardware MPEG decoding tends to influence the outcome. (Autoplay let my two year old start Despicable Me by inserting the disk. Yay.)
As I said in my comment response to #Paul R, consider using OpenCL as it'll easily let you run the same code on the GPU and CPU without having to reimplement it.
(These are probably pretty obvious in retrospect.)

Answer 3

For reference, I made a similar example with time measurements. With GTX 660, the GPU speedup was 24X where its operation includes data transfers in addition to actual computation.
#include "cuda_runtime.h"
#include "device_launch_parameters.h"
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
#define N (1024*1024)
#define M (10000)
#define THREADS_PER_BLOCK 1024
void serial_add(double *a, double *b, double *c, int n, int m)
{
for(int index=0;index<n;index++)
{
for(int j=0;j<m;j++)
{
c[index] = a[index]*a[index] + b[index]*b[index];
}
}
}
__global__ void vector_add(double *a, double *b, double *c)
{
int index = blockIdx.x * blockDim.x + threadIdx.x;
for(int j=0;j<M;j++)
{
c[index] = a[index]*a[index] + b[index]*b[index];
}
}
int main()
{
clock_t start,end;
double *a, *b, *c;
int size = N * sizeof( double );
a = (double *)malloc( size );
b = (double *)malloc( size );
c = (double *)malloc( size );
for( int i = 0; i < N; i++ )
{
a[i] = b[i] = i;
c[i] = 0;
}
start = clock();
serial_add(a, b, c, N, M);
printf( "c[0] = %d\n",0,c[0] );
printf( "c[%d] = %d\n",N-1, c[N-1] );
end = clock();
float time1 = ((float)(end-start))/CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
printf("Serial: %f seconds\n",time1);
start = clock();
double *d_a, *d_b, *d_c;
cudaMalloc( (void **) &d_a, size );
cudaMalloc( (void **) &d_b, size );
cudaMalloc( (void **) &d_c, size );
cudaMemcpy( d_a, a, size, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice );
cudaMemcpy( d_b, b, size, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice );
vector_add<<< (N + (THREADS_PER_BLOCK-1)) / THREADS_PER_BLOCK, THREADS_PER_BLOCK >>>( d_a, d_b, d_c );
cudaMemcpy( c, d_c, size, cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost );
printf( "c[0] = %d\n",0,c[0] );
printf( "c[%d] = %d\n",N-1, c[N-1] );
free(a);
free(b);
free(c);
cudaFree( d_a );
cudaFree( d_b );
cudaFree( d_c );
end = clock();
float time2 = ((float)(end-start))/CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
printf("CUDA: %f seconds, Speedup: %f\n",time2, time1/time2);
return 0;
}

Answer 4

I agree with David's comments about OpenCL being a great way to test this, because of how easy it is to switch between running code on the CPU vs. GPU. If you're able to work on a Mac, Apple has a nice bit of sample code that does an N-body simulation using OpenCL, with kernels running on the CPU, GPU, or both. You can switch between them in real time, and the FPS count is displayed onscreen.
For a much simpler case, they have a "hello world" OpenCL command line application that calculates squares in a manner similar to what David describes. That could probably be ported to non-Mac platforms without much effort. To switch between GPU and CPU usage, I believe you just need to change the
int gpu = 1;
line in the hello.c source file to 0 for CPU, 1 for GPU.
Apple has some more OpenCL example code in their main Mac source code listing.
Dr. David Gohara had an example of OpenCL's GPU speedup when performing molecular dynamics calculations at the very end of this introductory video session on the topic (about around minute 34). In his calculation, he sees a roughly 27X speedup by going from a parallel implementation running on 8 CPU cores to a single GPU. Again, it's not the simplest of examples, but it shows a real-world application and the advantage of running certain calculations on the GPU.
I've also done some tinkering in the mobile space using OpenGL ES shaders to perform rudimentary calculations. I found that a simple color thresholding shader run across an image was roughly 14-28X faster when run as a shader on the GPU than the same calculation performed on the CPU for this particular device.