Intel: GeForce GTX 280 is only 14x faster than Core i7-960

By on June 24, 2010, 2:31 PM
In a peculiar attempt to dismiss claims made by Nvidia, Intel yesterday argued that its CPU technology is only 14 times slower than the graphics company's GPUs. The unusual admission comes as the Santa Clara-based chipmaker looks to downplay Nvidia's claims that its GPUs outperform the conventional Intel processor by a factor of 100.

In a paper titled "Debunking the 100x GPU vs CPU Myth," Intel suggests that application kernels run up to 14 times faster in certain circumstances on an Nvidia GeForce GTX 280 than an Intel Core i7-960. On average, Intel says that number is more along the lines of 2.5 times faster. Naturally, Nvidia quickly published a rebuttal of its own.

In a blog post, spokesman Andy Keane pointed out that Intel used Nvidia's last-generation GPU, as opposed to Fermi. Keane also notes that Intel presumably ran unoptimized codes on the GTX 280, and it's not even clear how they were compared between the GPU and CPU.

The Nvidia staffer went on to acknowledge that not all applications run 100 times quicker on GPUs, but he cited many developers who have achieved that kind of performance, and more. At least seven organizations cite speed-ups of over 100x, and one claims 300x.




User Comments: 26

Got something to say? Post a comment
raybay said:

Only ? Picky Picky

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Obviously the only resolution to this is have representatives from nVidia and Intel duke it out in a cage match with a fight to the death!

TorturedChaos, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

TomSEA said:

Obviously the only resolution to this is have representatives from nVidia and Intel duke it out in a cage match with a fight to the death!

I think I would pay to see that

hellokitty[hk] hellokitty[hk], I'm a TechSpot Evangelist, said:

Only because intel's attempt at discreet graphics failed and is currently pending...

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Well then lets roll out them Nvidia CPU's!

Staff
Matthew Matthew, TechSpot Staff, said:

TomSEA said:

Obviously the only resolution to this is have representatives from nVidia and Intel duke it out in a cage match with a fight to the death!

LOL I can only imagine what a sad display that would be. They'd have to air the fight on Comedy Central.

Vrmithrax Vrmithrax, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Somehow, I'm picturing the fight to the death scene on Vulcan between Spock and Kirk, only with 2 supernerds who can barely lift the weapons, wheezing and stumbling around trying to hit each other... Even have the dramatic music from the scene playing in my brain as they flail around...

Thanks, TomSEA... I may need therapy or hypnosis or something to get this scene out of my head!

9Nails, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Well in certain circumstances, I drive faster than Lewis Hamilton. (Namingly while he sleeps.) But I'm not going to run out and publish that, or did I?

Chazz said:

I'm sure lewis hamilton drives faster than you in his dreams. Maybe you mean in your dreams? :P

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Somehow, I'm picturing the fight to the death scene on Vulcan between Spock and Kirk, only with 2 supernerds who can barely lift the weapons, wheezing and stumbling around trying to hit each other...

...until supernerd1.0 arbitrarily decides that the testing enviroment is flawed and presents his argument ALL IN CAPS that the setting should take place in a virtual Battlestar Galactica episode. Tantrums and hilarity ensue over who's futuristic space opera of super-advanced technology that still requires manually aimed small-arms is the dominant form.

Pilot to air on Fox in the new season.

Timonius Timonius said:

Vrmithrax said:

Somehow, I'm picturing the fight to the death scene on Vulcan between Spock and Kirk, only with 2 supernerds who can barely lift the weapons, wheezing and stumbling around trying to hit each other... Even have the dramatic music from the scene playing in my brain as they flail around...

Thanks, TomSEA... I may need therapy or hypnosis or something to get this scene out of my head!

Actually, I picture the Kirk vs Gorn fight! * Way more dramatic! High speed action intensive scenes! - end sarcasm*

Vicbowling said:

Oh, Oh I just but a core i7 machine. Does this mean I made the wrong choice (again) *sigh* I can't win at this stuff.

grvalderrama said:

I don't get it, how can you possibly compare a graphic processor vs. a... data processor?

LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

I don't get it, how can you possibly compare a graphic processor vs. a... data processor?

Because they get paid trash loads of money to do it, not you, that's why you can't see it.

Guest said:

O yea baby

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Somehow, I'm picturing the fight to the death scene on Vulcan between Spock and Kirk, only with 2 supernerds who can barely lift the weapons, wheezing and stumbling around trying to hit each other... Even have the dramatic music from the scene playing in my brain as they flail around...

Is this the STOS battle over Spock's Vulcan Trollop Fiance....?

"Jim...if you don't get him to Vulcan he'll die"! Why Bones"?

After dealing with that b****, you'd think the next line would be, "oh death, where is thy sting"?

I don't get it, how can you possibly compare a graphic processor vs. a... data processor?
Do Nvidia GPUs allow PS/2 mouse and keyboard, or are they USB only...?
Because they get paid trash loads of money to do it, not you, that's why you can't see it.
OK then, it is logical to assume by this you mean, that if any one of us was paid identical money, that would improve our vision...?

LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

OK then, it is logical to assume by this you mean, that if any one of us was paid identical money, that would improve our vision...?

I guess if we were paid by nvidia to be more specific. And yes if we were paid identical moneys from the respective company we may feel compelled to feel the same way.

grvalderrama said:

I don't get captain... Sorry, my english is not that good to get practical jokes or ironies... if that's what you intented to do...

What's the point of the discussion if one processor cannot work without the other, and i don't mean these 2 processors, i mean the logical (or whatever is its name) processor is useless without a graphic processor and vice versa, who cares which one is more powerful?

Pointless publication...

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

The article isn't dealing with CPU versus grahics processor. It means CPU versus GPGPU. In essence using the parallel nature of graphics processing (cores/shaders) to do the same type of computation that is undertaken traditionally by the CPU alone.

A primer here.

While CPU's and GPGPU's exist in tandem, both are optimized for their own particular branch of coding. Parallel computation tasks (like Folding@Home, SETI@Home, Milkyway@Home etc.)lends itself well to the many "cored" GPGPU which would bog down a 2,3,4,6 cored CPU.

As for who cares which one is powerful....it's more a case of utilising both to increase productivity

BTW : 2.98 Petaflops means that the system is theoretically capable of undertaking 2,980,000,000,000,000 FLoating point Operations (calculations) Per Second

Guest said:

I smell a new cpu coming to the market soon :D, only problem is it uses 375 watts

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Sounds frightening!

Since Intel's new chips are already slated for 65w & 95w, nVidia doesn't have a x86 license and IBM's new Power7 has already been released it doesn't leave a whole lot of players left in the market

Guest said:

Vicbowling, You made a horrible decision give me your whole i7 system and I will trade for a GTX280.

Now you will be able to run Windows 7 14x faster.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Vicbowling, You made a horrible decision give me your whole i7 system and I will trade for a GTX280.

Now you will be able to run Windows 7 14x faster.

I would be careful with this. If Windows runs 14X faster, it may also crash in 1 /14 the time.

Deathstar17 said:

red1776 said:

Well then lets roll out them Nvidia CPU's!

Exactly! This is such a ridiculous argument, if you need the power get a graphics card, but Intel isn't doing that bad of a job.

hellokitty[hk] hellokitty[hk], I'm a TechSpot Evangelist, said:

I would be careful with this. If Windows runs 14X faster, it may also crash in 1 /14 the time.

Guest said:

Comrades, the friendship only wins forever alltogather!

I mean tandem friendship of GPU+CPU.

So there is very wannahave some special DSP inside machine to get full happy!

P.S> This PDF smells ilke not pure and clean. Becouse we almost have to use Windows or Linux OSes to get some visible results. There i got some sence that guys made their tests for Intel-i7 in clean ideal environment without (for example) Windows side payload.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Pavel Petrov.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.