Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I am interested to know whether anyone has written an application that takes advantage of a GPGPU by using, for example, nVidia CUDA. If so, what issues did you find and what performance gains did you achieve compared with a standard CPU?
I have been doing gpgpu development with ATI's stream SDK instead of Cuda.
What kind of performance gain you will get depends on a lot of factors, but the most important is the numeric intensity. (That is, the ratio of compute operations to memory references.)
A BLAS level-1 or BLAS level-2 function like adding two vectors only does 1 math operation for each 3 memory references, so the NI is (1/3). This is always run slower with CAL or Cuda than just doing in on the cpu. The main reason is the time it takes to transfer the data from the cpu to the gpu and back.
For a function like FFT, there are O(N log N) computations and O(N) memory references, so the NI is O(log N). If N is very large, say 1,000,000 it will likely be faster to do it on the gpu; If N is small, say 1,000 it will almost certainly be slower.
For a BLAS level-3 or LAPACK function like LU decomposition of a matrix, or finding its eigenvalues, there are O( N^3) computations and O(N^2) memory references, so the NI is O(N). For very small arrays, say N is a few score, this will still be faster to do on the cpu, but as N increases, the algorithm very quickly goes from memory-bound to compute-bound and the performance increase on the gpu rises very quickly.
Anything involving complex arithemetic has more computations than scalar arithmetic, which usually doubles the NI and increases gpu performance.
(source: earthlink.net)
Here is the performance of CGEMM -- complex single precision matrix-matrix multiplication done on a Radeon 4870.
I have written trivial applications, it really helps if you can parallize floating point calculations.
I found the following course cotaught by a University of Illinois Urbana Champaign professor and an NVIDIA engineer very useful when I was getting started: http://courses.ece.illinois.edu/ece498/al/Archive/Spring2007/Syllabus.html (includes recordings of all lectures).
I have used CUDA for several image processing algorithms. These applications, of course, are very well suited for CUDA (or any GPU processing paradigm).
IMO, there are three typical stages when porting an algorithm to CUDA:
Initial Porting: Even with a very basic knowledge of CUDA, you can port simple algorithms within a few hours. If you are lucky, you gain a factor of 2 to 10 in performance.
Trivial Optimizations: This includes using textures for input data and padding of multi-dimensional arrays. If you are experienced, this can be done within a day and might give you another factor of 10 in performance. The resulting code is still readable.
Hardcore Optimizations: This includes copying data to shared memory to avoid global memory latency, turning the code inside out to reduce the number of used registers, etc. You can spend several weeks with this step, but the performance gain is not really worth it in most cases. After this step, your code will be so obfuscated that nobody understands it (including you).
This is very similar to optimizing a code for CPUs. However, the response of a GPU to performance optimizations is even less predictable than for CPUs.
I have been using GPGPU for motion detection (Originally using CG and now CUDA) and stabilization (using CUDA) with image processing.
I've been getting about a 10-20X speedup in these situations.
From what I've read, this is fairly typical for data-parallel algorithms.
While I haven't got any practical experiences with CUDA yet, I have been studying the subject and found a number of papers which document positive results using GPGPU APIs (they all include CUDA).
This paper describes how database joins can be paralellized by creating a number of parallel primitives (map, scatter, gather etc.) which can be combined into an efficient algorithm.
In this paper, a parallel implementation of the AES encryption standard is created with comparable speed to discreet encryption hardware.
Finally, this paper analyses how well CUDA applies to a number of applications such as structured and unstructured grids, combination logic, dynamic programming and data mining.
I've implemented a Monte Carlo calculation in CUDA for some financial use. The optimised CUDA code is about 500x faster than a "could have tried harder, but not really" multi-threaded CPU implementation. (Comparing a GeForce 8800GT to a Q6600 here). It is well know that Monte Carlo problems are embarrassingly parallel though.
Major issues encountered involves the loss of precision due to G8x and G9x chip's limitation to IEEE single precision floating point numbers. With the release of the GT200 chips this could be mitigated to some extent by using the double precision unit, at the cost of some performance. I haven't tried it out yet.
Also, since CUDA is a C extension, integrating it into another application can be non-trivial.
I implemented a Genetic Algorithm on the GPU and got speed ups of around 7.. More gains are possible with a higher numeric intensity as someone else pointed out. So yes, the gains are there, if the application is right
I wrote a complex valued matrix multiplication kernel that beat the cuBLAS implementation by about 30% for the application I was using it for, and a sort of vector outer product function that ran several orders of magnitude than a multiply-trace solution for the rest of the problem.
It was a final year project. It took me a full year.
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~oconbhup/Maths_Project.pdf
I have implemented Cholesky Factorization for solving large linear equation on GPU using ATI Stream SDK. My observations were
Got performance speedup upto 10 times.
Working on same problem to optimize it more, by scaling it to multiple GPUs.
Yes. I have implemented the Nonlinear Anisotropic Diffusion Filter using the CUDA api.
It is fairly easy, since it's a filter that must be run in parallel given an input image. I haven't encountered many difficulties on this, since it just required a simple kernel. The speedup was at about 300x. This was my final project on CS. The project can be found here (it's written in Portuguese thou).
I have tried writing the Mumford&Shah segmentation algorithm too, but that has been a pain to write, since CUDA is still in the beginning and so lots of strange things happen. I have even seen a performance improvement by adding a if (false){} in the code O_O.
The results for this segmentation algorithm weren't good. I had a performance loss of 20x compared to a CPU approach (however, since it's a CPU, a different approach that yelded the same results could be taken). It's still a work in progress, but unfortunaly I left the lab I was working on, so maybe someday I might finish it.
Related
I have code doing a lot of operations with objects which can be represented as arrays.
When does it make to sense to use GPGPU environments (like CUDA) in an application? Can I predict performance gains before writing real code?
The convenience depends on a number of factors. Elementwise independent operations on large arrays/matrices are a good candidate.
For your particular problem (machine learning/fuzzy logic), I would recommend reading some related documents, as
Large Scale Machine Learning using NVIDIA CUDA
and
Fuzzy Logic-Based Image Processing Using Graphics Processor Units
to have a feeling on the speedup achieved by other people.
As already mentioned, you should specify your problem. However, if large parts of your code involve operations on your objects that are independent in a sense that object n does not have to wait for the results of the operations objects 0 to n-1, GPUs may enhance performance.
You could go to CUDA Zone to get yourself a general idea about what CUDA can do and do better than CPU.
https://developer.nvidia.com/category/zone/cuda-zone
CUDA has already provided lots of performance libraries, tools and ecosystems to reduce the development difficulty. It could also help you understand what kind of operations CUDA are good at.
https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-tools-ecosystem
Further more, CUDA provided benchmark report on some of the most common and representative operations. You could find if your code can benefit from that.
https://developer.nvidia.com/sites/default/files/akamai/cuda/files/CUDADownloads/CUDA_5.0_Math_Libraries_Performance.pdf
I have a presentation to make to people who have (almost) no clue of how a GPU works. I think saying that a GPU has a thousand cores where a CPU only has four to eight of them is a non-sense. But I want to give my audience an element of comparison.
After a few months working with NVidia's Kepler and AMD's GCN architectures, I'm tempted to compare a GPU "core" to a CPU's SIMD ALU (I don't know if they have a name for that at Intel). Is it fair ? After all, when looking at an assembly level, those programming models have much in common (at least with GCN, take a look at p2-6 of the ISA manual).
This article states that an Haswell processor can do 32 single-precision operations per cycle, but I suppose there is pipelining or other things happening to achieve that rate. In NVidia parlance, how many Cuda-cores does this processor have ? I would say 8 per CPU-core for 32 bits operations, but this is just a guess based on the SIMD width.
Of course there is many other things to take into account when comparing CPU and GPU hardware, but this is not what I'm trying to do. I just have to explain how the thing is working.
PS: All pointers to CPU hardware documentations or CPU/GPU presentations are greatly appreciated !
EDIT:
Thanks for your answers, sadly I had to chose only one of them. I marked Igor's answer because it sticks the most to my initial question and gave me enough informations to justify why this comparison shouldn't be taken too far, but CaptainObvious provided very good articles.
I'd be very caution on making this kind of comparison. After all even in the GPU world the term "core" depending on the context has really different capability: the new AMD GCN is quite different from the old VLIW4 one which itself is quite different from the CUDA core one.
Besides that, you will bring more puzzlement than understanding to your audience if you make just one small comparison with CPU and that's it. If I were you I'd still go for a more detailed (can still be quick) comparison. For instance someone used to CPU and with little knowledge of GPU, might wonder how come a GPU can have so many registers though it's so expensive (in the CPU world). An explanation to that question is given at the end of this post as well as some more comparison GPU vs CPU.
This other article gives a nice comparison between these two kind of processing units by explaining how GPUs work but also how they evolved and showing the differences with CPUs. It addresses topics like data flow, memory hierarchy but also for what kind of applications a GPU is useful. After all the power a GPU can developed is accessible (efficiently) only for some types of problems.
And personally, If I had to make a presentation about GPU and had the possibility to make only one reference to CPU it would be this: presenting the problems a GPU can solve efficiently vs those a CPU can handle better.
As a bonus even though it's not related directly to your presentation here is an article that put GPGPU in perspective, showing that some speedup claimed by some people are overrated (this is linked to my last point btw :))
Very loosely speaking, it is not entirely unreasonable to say that a Haswell core has about 16 CUDA cores, but you definitely don't want to take that comparison too far. You may want to be cautious about making that statement directly in a presentation, but I've found it to be useful to think of a CUDA core as being somewhat related to a scalar FP unit.
It may help if I explain why Haswell can perform 32 single-precision operations per cycle.
8 single-precision operations execute in each AVX/AVX2 instruction. When writing code that will run on a Haswell CPU, you can use AVX and AVX2 instructions which operate on 256-bit vectors. These 256-bit vectors can represent 8 single-precision FP numbers, 8 integers (32-bit) or 4 double-precision FP numbers.
2 AVX/AVX2 instructions can execute in each core per cycle, although there are some restrictions on which instructions can be paired up.
A fused multiply add (FMA) instruction technically performs 2 single-precision operations. FMA instructions perform "fused" operations such as A = A * B + C, so there are arguably two operations per scalar operand: a multiplication and an addition.
This article explains the above points in more detail: http://www.realworldtech.com/haswell-cpu/4/
In the total accounting, a Haswell core can perform 8 * 2 * 2 single-precision operations per cycle. Since CUDA cores support FMA operations as well, you cannot count that factor of 2 when comparing CUDA cores to Haswell cores.
A Kepler CUDA core has one single-precision floating-point unit, so it can perform one floating-point operation per cycle: http://www.nvidia.com/content/PDF/kepler/NVIDIA-Kepler-GK110-Architecture-Whitepaper.pdf, http://www.realworldtech.com/kepler-brief/
If I was putting together slides on this, I would have one section explaining how many FP operations Haswell can do per cycle: the three points above, plus you have multiple cores and possibly multiple processors. And, I'd have another section explaining how many FP operations a Kepler GPU can do per cycle: 192 per SMX, and you have multiple SMX units on the GPU.
PS.: I may be stating the obvious, but just to avoid confusion: the Haswell architecture also includes an integrated GPU, which has an altogether different architecture from the Haswell CPU.
I completely agree with CaptainObvious, especially that presenting the problems a GPU can solve efficiently vs those a CPU can handle better would be a good idea.
One way I like to compare CPUs and GPUs is by the number of operation/sec that they can perorm. But of course don't compare one cpu core to a multi-core gpu.
A SandyBridge core can perform 2 AVX op/cycles, that is crunch 8 double precision numbers/cycle. Hence, a computer with 16 Sandy-Bridge cores clocked at 2.6 GHz has a peak power of 333 Gflops.
A K20 computing module GK110 has a peak of 1170 Gflops, that is 3.5 times more. This is a fair comparaison in my opinion, and it should be emphasized that the peak performance is much easier to reach on CPU (some applications reach 80%-90% of peak) than on GPU (best cases I know are less than 50% of peak).
So to summerize, I would not go into architecture details, but rather state some shear numbers with the perspective that the peak is often far from reach on GPUs.
It's more fair to compare GPU to vectorized CPU units however if your audience has zero idea of how GPUs work, it seems fair to assume that they have a similar knowledge of vectorized SSE instructions.
For audiences such as these it's important to point out the high level differences, like how blocks of "cores" on the gpu share a scheduler and register file.
I would refer to the GTC Kepler architecture overview for a better idea of what the Kepler architecture looks like.
This is also a reasonably graspable comparison between the two if you want to stick to the "gpu core" idea.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I've heard the statement that for many applications GPUs are more energy efficient than multi-core CPUs, particularly when the graphics hardware is well utilized. I'm having trouble finding papers, articles, or anything describing the specific architectural features that result in that claim, or a scientific study directly comparing the energy consumption of GPUs to CPUs on a set of benchmarks. Could anyone provide more insight into the backing of this claim, or point me to some studies that show evidence for it?
If I had to guess, I would say that it mostly stems from the lower frequencies of GPU clocks. Additionally, this paper:
http://accel.cs.vt.edu/sites/default/files/paper/huang-hppac09-gpu.pdf
suggests that it's partially a result of GPUs just getting the problem done quicker, so even though the peak power consumption is higher for GPUs the time they spend at that level is much shorter than CPUs (again, for the right problems). Can anyone add anything more?
Thanks!
TL;DR answer: more of the transistors in a gpu are actually working on the computation than in a cpu.
The big power efficiency-killer of today's cpus is a trade-off to allow general computation on the chip. Whether it is a RISC, x86, or other cpu architecture, there is extra hardware dedicated to the general purpose usage of the cpu. These transistors require electricity, although they are not doing any actual math.
Fast cpus require advanced branch prediction hardware and large cache memory to be able to avoid lengthy processing which could be discarded later in the pipeline. For the most part, cpus execute their instruction one at a time (per cpu core, SIMD helps out cpus as well...), and handle conditions extremely well. Gpus rely on doing the same operation on many pieces of data (SIMD/vector operation), and suffer greatly with simple conditions found in 'if' and 'for' statements.
There is also a lot of hardware used to fetch, decode, and schedule instructions -- this is true for cpus and gpus. This big difference being that the ratio of fetch+decode+schedule transistors to computating transistors tends to be much higher for a gpu.
Here is an AMD presentation (2011) about how their gpus have changed over time, but this really applies to most gpus in general. PDF link. It helped me understand the power advantage of gpus by knowing a bit of the history behind how gpus got to be so good at certain computations.
I gave an answer to a similar question a while ago. SO Link.
Usually, these claims are backed by comparing the GFLOPs performance and estimating the power per floating point operation as shown in this post. But this is essentially what you wrote in your last sentence.
You also have to take into account that the CPU and GPU architectures target different problems. Whereas a CPU core (at least on x86) has deep pipelines, a large instruction set and very sophisticated caching strategies to cater to a wide array of problems, a GPU core is rather simple and thus draws a lot less power. To make up for this, there are many more computing cores in a GPU than in a CPU. But you probably know that already.
I am quite new to GPU programming, but since I have a computationally intensive task I have turned to the GPU for possible performance gains.
I tried rewriting my program with ArrayFire Free version. It is indeed faster than my CPU routine with multi-threading enabled, but not to the degree I expected (that is, < 100% speedup), and the returned results are not quite right (< 1% error compared to CPU routine, assuming the CPU routine's results are correct).
My task is mainly element-wise float-32 maths operations on large matrices (300MB-500MB size), with little if-thens/switch-cases etc. I guess the performance bottleneck is likely the bandwidth between CPU and GPU memory since there is a lot of data-reading, etc. The GPU I tested is a GeForce 580GTX with 3GB of video memory.
Is there still some significant room for optimization if I write raw CUDA code (with CUBLAS etc. and average optimization) instead of using ArrayFire for my task? I read some NVIDIA optimization guides; it seems that there is some memory-access tricks there for faster data-access and reducing bank-conflicts. Does ArrayFire use these general tricks automatically or not?
Thanks for the post. Glad to hear initial results were giving some speedup. I work on ArrayFire and can chime in here on your questions.
First and foremost, code is really required here for anyone to help with specificity. Can you share the code you wrote?
Second, you should think about CUDA and ArrayFire in the following way: CUDA is a way to program the GPU that provides you with the ability to write any GPU code you want. But there is a huge difference between naive CUDA code (often slower than the CPU) and expert, time-staking, hand-optimized CUDA code. ArrayFire (and some other GPU libraries like CUBLAS) have many man-years of optimizations poured into them, and are typically going to give better results than most normal people will have time to achieve on their own. However, there is also variability in how well someone uses ArrayFire (or other libraries). There are variables that can and should be tweaked in the usage of ArrayFire library calls to get the best performance. If you post your code, we can help share some of those here.
Third, ArrayFire uses CUBLAS in the functions that rely on BLAS, so you're not likely to see much difference using CUBLAS directly.
Fourth, yes, ArrayFire uses all the optimizations that are available in the NVIDIA CUDA Programming Guide for (e.g. faster data-transfer and reducing memory bank conflicts like you mention). That's where the bulk of ArrayFire development is focused, on optimizing those sorts of things.
Finally, the data discrepancies you noticed are likely due to that nature of CPU vs GPU computing. Since they are different devices, you will often see slightly different results. It's not that the CPU gives better results than the GPU, but rather that they are both working with finite amounts of precision in slightly different ways. If you're using single-precision instead of double, you might consider that. Posting code will let us help on that too.
Happy to expand my answer once code is posted.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 months ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 8 months ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
I'm currently implementing a raytracer. Since raytracing is extremely computation heavy and since I am going to be looking into CUDA programming anyway, I was wondering if anyone has any experience with combining the two. I can't really tell if the computational models match and I would like to know what to expect. I get the impression that it's not exactly a match made in heaven, but a decent speed increasy would be better than nothing.
One thing to be very wary of in CUDA is that divergent control flow in your kernel code absolutely KILLS performance, due to the structure of the underlying GPU hardware. GPUs typically have massively data-parallel workloads with highly-coherent control flow (i.e. you have a couple million pixels, each of which (or at least large swaths of which) will be operated on by the exact same shader program, even taking the same direction through all the branches. This enables them to make some hardware optimizations, like only having a single instruction cache, fetch unit, and decode logic for each group of 32 threads. In the ideal case, which is common in graphics, they can broadcast the same instruction to all 32 sets of execution units in the same cycle (this is known as SIMD, or Single-Instruction Multiple-Data). They can emulate MIMD (Multiple-Instruction) and SPMD (Single-Program), but when threads within a Streaming Multiprocessor (SM) diverge (take different code paths out of a branch), the issue logic actually switches between each code path on a cycle-by-cycle basis. You can imagine that, in the worst case, where all threads are on separate paths, your hardware utilization just went down by a factor of 32, effectively killing any benefit you would've had by running on a GPU over a CPU, particularly considering the overhead associated with marshalling the dataset from the CPU, over PCIe, to the GPU.
That said, ray-tracing, while data-parallel in some sense, has widely-diverging control flow for even modestly-complex scenes. Even if you manage to map a bunch of tightly-spaced rays that you cast out right next to each other onto the same SM, the data and instruction locality you have for the initial bounce won't hold for very long. For instance, imagine all 32 highly-coherent rays bouncing off a sphere. They will all go in fairly different directions after this bounce, and will probably hit objects made out of different materials, with different lighting conditions, and so forth. Every material and set of lighting, occlusion, etc. conditions has its own instruction stream associated with it (to compute refraction, reflection, absorption, etc.), and so it becomes quite difficult to run the same instruction stream on even a significant fraction of the threads in an SM. This problem, with the current state of the art in ray-tracing code, reduces your GPU utilization by a factor of 16-32, which may make performance unacceptable for your application, especially if it's real-time (e.g. a game). It still might be superior to a CPU for e.g. a render farm.
There is an emerging class of MIMD or SPMD accelerators being looked at now in the research community. I would look at these as logical platforms for software, real-time raytracing.
If you're interested in the algorithms involved and mapping them to code, check out POVRay. Also look into photon mapping, it's an interesting technique that even goes one step closer to representing physical reality than raytracing.
It can certainly be done, has been done, and is a hot topic currently among the raytracing and Cuda gurus. I'd start by perusing http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_home.html
But it's basically a research problem. People who are doing it well are getting peer-reviewed research papers out of it. But well at this point still means that the best GPU/Cuda results are approximately competitive with best-of-class solutions on CPU/multi-core/SSE. So I think that it's a little early to assume that using Cuda is going to accelerate a ray tracer. The problem is that although ray tracing is "embarrassingly parallel" (as they say), it is not the kind of "fixed input and output size" problem that maps straightforwardly to GPUs -- you want trees, stacks, dynamic data structures, etc. It can be done with Cuda/GPU, but it's tricky.
Your question wasn't clear about your experience level or the goals of your project. If this is your first ray tracer and you're just trying to learn, I'd avoid Cuda -- it'll take you 10x longer to develop and you probably won't get good speed. If you're a moderately experienced Cuda programmer and are looking for a challenging project and ray tracing is just a fun thing to learn, by all means, try to do it in Cuda. If you're making a commercial app and you're looking to get a competitive speed edge -- well, it's probably a crap shoot at this point... you might get a performance edge, but at the expense of more difficult development and dependence on particular hardware.
Check back in a year, the answer may be different after another generation or two of GPU speed, Cuda compiler development, and research community experience.