/tech/ - Technology

holy shit you actually made the thread

>>538304

>>538302

I feel like something is going on here that I don't understand

>>538304

Hell yeah I did

>>538308

Because it's the same as a GPU and GPU was coined by Nvidia for marketing.

>>>/v/8607818

>>538302

>not turbo pixelator

>>538308

Because the GPU is the chip, not the card (it's really used to name the chip, thus leading to confusion).

That would be like calling a mobo with RAM and CPU on it a "CPU".

>>538327

This guy knows whats up.

bump

>>538302

"Graphics card"

Like I said in the other thread, video card. Because that's what they are. But not everybody is old enough to have used a computer that had LEDs or light bulbs as the only user-readable display.

Technically thing that communicates with a monitor and thing that crunches vectors, textures and polygons are completely different and separate devices.

We just stick them on one circuitboard because of historical accident/convinience.

What would be cool is to separate them back, throw away "graphics" part of graphics accelerator and make it into general purpose parallel processing accelerator, then reimplement OpenGL in OpenCL. Or implement Vulkan/Mantle in OpenCL. Or let every little program ship with it's own graphics library.

>>542353

You're pretty much describing Larabee, which was the Intel answer to NVIDIA/ATI, a bunch of little pentium cores on a card with a video output, but they cancelled it because the price/performance ratio was shit and ended up releasing it as a supercomputing peripheral instead with no video out. So technically you can already buy that, but it'll cost you a few thousand units of first world money, and won't work with any games you don't make yourself.

>>540294

This is what autism looks like.

>>542353

That is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever had the displeasure to read.

>>542353

There is a very specific level of computer knowledge that leads to thinking like you are now. Too much and you understand why it's a bad idea; too little and it'll never cross your mind.

What you're essentially talking about is virtualizing the GPU's various hardware-implemented parts. It's a good thought, but unfortunately, a software implemented rasterizer or other component would end up being much slower than a hardware one.

>>542353

the part that throws the picture into the monitor costs almost nothing to make. there's no reason to not put it on the same chip as graphics accelerator