Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
> in the time that Python can perform a single FLOP, an A100 could have chewed through 9.75 million FLOPS

wild

Why are we comparing a programing language and a GPU. This is a category error. Programing languages do not do any operations. They perform no FLOPs, they are the thing the FLOPs are performing.

"The I7-4770K and preform 20k more Flops than C++" is an equally sensible statement (i.e. not)

> Why are we comparing a programing language and a GPU.

You are taking the statement too literally and forgetting it's a figure of speech, specifically metonymy.

When the author says it's millions of flops faster in a gpu than in an interpreteted programming language, it's not comparing them directly, but algorithms that run in them, so the substitution is the algorithms for the tools used to implement/run them.

It makes sense if you say "running similar logic -- like multiplying vectors and matrices -- on the CPU is millions of flops slower then on the GPU". There is no category error there.

loading story #48248015
loading story #48248686
This statement makes zero sense
re comments:

yes of course this is apples to oranges but that's kind of the point

it shows the vast span between specialized hardware throughput IFF you can use an A100 at its limit vs overhead of one of the most popular programming languages in use today that eventually does the "same thing" on a CPU

the interesting thing is why that is so

CPU vs GPU (latency vs throughput), boxing vs dense representation, interpreter overhead, scalar execution, layers upon layers, …

loading story #48248075
Which, lets be honest, is probably still being orchestrated by Python somewhere.

Python is 9.75 million times faster than Python.

loading story #48248298
Single core vs multi core accounts for much of this
loading story #48247267
{"deleted":true,"id":48247426,"parent":48247050,"time":1779542339,"type":"comment"}