Talk:Stream processing

message: I think the claims of this article ought to be toned down. Conceptually stream processing is somewhat similiar to vector processing.
Some of the Imagine folks are at a startup company named Stream Processors Inc. trying to build (you guessed it!), a commercially viable stream processor. Dyl 08:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More comments 

message: Can someone create the proper wikilinks for DMA and DSP? I'm not sure what the article is talking about. ··gracefool |☺ 03:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acronyms 

message: Note for discussion on User:WipEout! additions: this is being discussed on my talk page.
MaxDZ8 talk 07:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion note 

message: The entries for "Stream Processor" and "GPGPU" should remain distinct.  These two entries are related and should have links to one another.  However, there is enough distinct material in each entry to make merging them a bad idea.  There are many stream processors, including the original Imagine Stream Processor, that are not GPUs.   Also, while a "Stream Processor" is a device, "GPGPU" refers not to a device (the GPU) but rather to a use of the device - for applications other than polygon rendering.   While modern GPUs use "stream processors" for their shaders, they also have a considerable amount of specialized logic for textures and compositing - hence these GPUs use stream processors, but are not themselves stream processors. BillDally 18:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with GPGPU 

message: See . maybe this new stream processor should be mentioned in the article. -80.108.234.164 02:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMD introduced a stream processor 

message: I started an article on "stream programming" because I could not find an appropriate place to put the information in the "stream processing" article. If an editor more familiar with the latter article knows of a good location, feel free to copy the information over. But please, if nothing else, have "stream programming" redirect to "stream processing" as there are number of Google searches for the former. Hpcanswers 07:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with "stream programming"? 

message: I find all of the comparisons between general purpose CPU's and the streaming processors to be EXTREMELY misleading. One of the greatest challenges of general purpose processors is trying to find parallelism while enduring unknown program flow. On average a given program will execute a branch once every 5 instructions (20%). The point of a streaming processor is that there IS NO program flow issues, so it can dedicate all of its hardware to executing back to back instructions as quickly as possible. Comparing the number of operations a pentium can perform compared to a GPU makes no sense, since they have entirely different purposes. A corvette can drive faster than a hummer - so what?
Quanticles 02:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Comparisons 

message: "Stream Processing" is a pretty general term, and it looks like multiple marketing departments are trying to coopt/create it. Along with the suggestions of merging this quite technical article about one kind of stream processing (using GPUs or other vector chips with stream-oriented algorithms), I think disambiguation is in order. In particular, this usage gets conflated with Event Stream Processing. I suggest replacing this page with a disambiguation page after merging the content.
--Tibbetts2c 21:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguate with Event Stream Processing? 

message: This article obviously has a lot of problems, but one which has not been discussed yet is its incomprehensibility for general readers. Encyclopedia articles need to at least start with an explanation of the topic which is comprehensible to any reasonably intelligent general reader. That's a test this article fails. jackbrown  —Preceding comment was added at 10:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to start out the first paragraph with an explanation of what we're talking about for GENERAL readers 

message: RISC is a great analogy of a concurrent development project which combined both a programming model (reducing op codes in this case) and hardware embodied in silicon.  In other words, each started with a software view and build hardware to adapt.  I propose we adopt the organizational structure of that article and build from there.  I would also propose to blow away the whole section regarding Comparison to prior parallel paradigms as it is quite disjointed and include those "paradigms" by reference.  If OK, I can rebuild over the weekend. 71.202.140.192 (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take a look at [[RISC]] for a good example how to organize 

message: It happens I have a bit of time right now to have a quick glance at what happened in the last few days.
*About the 05:01, 18 December 2007 revision.
The thing that bothers me most here is the way the GPU statement has changed. I am removing the line breaks and restoring the previous statement which seemed better. Note: this was inferred from the AT&T document. I am also restoring the previous stub on G8x, the '8800' is the card name. I believe it's way better instead to cite the chip family since it's the only real component delivering the HW features in a consistent manner.
Replacing a stub with another stub doesn't seem to be much useful so I'm keeping the previous one.
I also strip away the note on the AMD/ATi merger. Market events don't really change the fact it isn't a valuable milestone. By the way, the double precision is very likely emulated (just as it was on 80386 when the FP unit wasn't there).MaxDZ8 talk 13:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting comment 

message: Thank you for your continued effort. I am now checking out again the edits in the last few days.
*01:26, 29 December 2007: copyedit of various notes on the systolic array technology. Kept.
*07:40, 8 January 2008: tries to reduce complexity and removes a few statements. Good in principle, but debatable in implementation. It is also unclear what exactly is intended to be false, how and under what assumptions. I'm keeping the previous version, I would expect to discuss this on talk page before going in the wild. Not kept.
  Takes away a whole paragraph because of "new information available in the last two years". Again, good in principle but to be discussed, it would be ideal to discuss at least those new infos. Not kept.
  Adds a confusing tag on the hardware in the loop issues. Those problems have been pointed out in a linked reference so it seems reasonable they should be covered here and maybe on other pages as well. The current wording isn't exactly the state of the art however. Kept.
*08:12, 8 January 2008: this is a quite difficult to follow edit which seems to be based on compressing the previous 'applications' paragraph and then adding back detail... It has to be discussed if this is an improvement so I'm being bold as well and restoring previous version. Not kept.
*08:14, 8 January 2008; 08:16, 8 January 2008; 08:17, 8 January 2008; 08:20, 8 January 2008: those three just reshuffle the various entries in alphabetical order. Kept.
*15:36, 8 January 2008: adds a link. Kept.
*02:24, 10 January 2008: fixed a typo. Kept.
*07:50, 11 January 2008: wikilinks C, fixes a typo and removes an implicit repetition. Kept.
*07:59, 11 January 2008: comments out various info... It has to be noted that while the jargon may be imagine-specific, this architecture applies to other processors as well by just renaming a few key components. The previous jargon were used in the references as well. Not kept.
MaxDZ8 talk 16:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another edit run

message: ddddd  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.48.129 (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  dd