CUDA or FPGA for special purpose 3D graphics computations? [closed]

Solution 1:

We did some comparison between FPGA and CUDA. One thing where CUDA shines if you can realy formulate your problem in a SIMD fashion AND can access the memory coalesced. If the memory accesses are not coalesced(1) or if you have different control flow in different threads the GPU can lose drastically its performance and the FPGA can outperform it. Another thing is when your operation is realtive small, but you have a huge amount of it. But you cant (e.g. due to synchronisation) no start it in a loop in one kernel, then your invocation times for the GPU kernel exceeds the computation time.

Also the power of the FPGA could be better (depends on your application scenarion, ie. the GPU is only cheaper (in terms of Watts/Flop) when its computing all the time).

Offcourse the FPGA has also some drawbacks: IO can be one (we had here an application were we needed 70 GB/s, no problem for GPU, but to get this amount of data into a FPGA you need for conventional design more pins than available). Another drawback is the time and money. A FPGA is much more expensive than the best GPU and the development times are very high.

(1) Simultanously accesses from different thread to memory have to be to sequential addresses. This is sometimes really hard to achieve.

Solution 2:

I investigated the same question a while back. After chatting to people who have worked on FPGAs, this is what I get:

• FPGAs are great for realtime systems, where even 1ms of delay might be too long. This does not apply in your case;
• FPGAs can be very fast, espeically for well-defined digital signal processing usages (e.g. radar data) but the good ones are much more expensive and specialised than even professional GPGPUs;
• FPGAs are quite cumbersome to programme. Since there is a hardware configuration component to compiling, it could take hours. It seems to be more suited to electronic engineers (who are generally the ones who work on FPGAs) than software developers.

If you can make CUDA work for you, it's probably the best option at the moment. It will certainly be more flexible than a FPGA.

Other options include Brook from ATI, but until something big happens, it is simply not as well adopted as CUDA. After that, there's still all the traditional HPC options (clusters of x86/PowerPC/Cell), but they are all quite expensive.

Hope that helps.

Solution 3:

I would go with CUDA.
I work in image processing and have been trying hardware add-ons for years. First we had i860, then Transputer, then DSP, then the FPGA and direct-compiliation-to-hardware.
What innevitably happened was that by the time the hardware boards were really debugged and reliable and the code had been ported to them - regular CPUs had advanced to beat them, or the hosting machine architecture changed and we couldn't use the old boards, or the makers of the board went bust.

By sticking to something like CUDA you aren't tied to one small specialist maker of FPGA boards. The performence of GPUs is improving faster then CPUs and is funded by the gamers. It's a mainstream technology and so will probably merge with multi-core CPUs in the future and so protect your investment.