Recent comments in /f/explainlikeimfive

SarixInTheHouse t1_j6mh16t wrote

TLDR: the gpu is specialized in tasks needed for rendering. That way the cpu doesn’t have to do all the work and can do other tasks instead that the gpu isn’t capable of doing.

My best eli5:

You have two workers. One can do everything but not particularly fast. The other can draw really good but can’t do anything else.

Of course you could have the first worker do everything, but that would be slow. Instead you have the first one do all the story and background, and the second guy just for drawings, so that the first has time For other stuff

A bit more technical:

In a really rudimentary CPU you have a component that adds things together. Now let’s say you want to multiply two numbers. You could do that by simply adding several times.

If you do that you block the component that adds for quite a while. So instead you make a new component dedicated to multiplying. Now you can simultaneously add something while something else is being multiplied.

So you’re dedicating a component to a specific task in order to have more performance. And this goes way further. Anything you gpu does your cpu can too. But it’s like the multiplying: if the cpu does everything the gpu does Them is occupied a lot and can’t work on other tasks.

The GPU has components for tasks that are very common for rendering. So you take the entire workload of rendering an image away from the cpu and shove it onto the gpu. Now your cpu is free to do other things that the gpu can’t.

So yes, you can run a computer with just a cpu. But this cpu would constantly be occupied with rendering, and while its doing that it can’t do other stuff. You end up with a lot less performance.

2

fluorihammastahna t1_j6mgwod wrote

Another point is that even if the GPU would do very little computing, you would need something able to communicate between your screen and your computer. This is similar to external sound cards and network cards, although these are not so common these days because for most users the integrated cards are fine.

2

QuentinUK t1_j6mgpr0 wrote

Dozens were the popular way of counting ,1 dozen = 12.

Because there are 60 seconds in a minute, and 60 minutes an hour (5*12 = 60). And 24 hours a day (2*12), and turn 360 degrees in a circle (30*12 = 360), Fahrenheit scale was defined by two fixed points with a 180 °F separation (15*12 = 180): water freezes and the boiling point of water. 12 pennies to a shilling and 240 pennies to a pound (20*12 = 240). The Romans had 12 denarii to a solidus and 72 solidi to a pound 6*12 = 72). 12 inches to a foot. 5280 feet to a mile (440*12 = 5280).

3

antilos_weorsick t1_j6mgc3g wrote

No offence, but this doesn't actually explain anything. You use a lot of words to say "stars don't fuse iron because they can't".

You even have to throw away your analogy at the end, because it doesn't make sense.

I don't understand why people think ELI5 means they should anthropomorphise stuff. Sometimes that's useful, but sometimes (like now), it just serves to cover the fact that you didn't explain anything. "I don't actually know, little Timmy, but here's a nice story to occupy your mind, so you don't have time to ask any more questions."

5

Schnutzel t1_j6mft64 wrote

The Mayan calendar consists of various cycles (kinda like we have "cycles" - years, decades, centuries, millenia). One such cycle (bak'tun) ended in 2012. That's it. There was no big scare outside of some idiots and a few Hollywood movies.

And the Mayans lived in Central America, not South America.

7

dg313 t1_j6mfsgi wrote

Is it because in the first sentence, “sleep” functions as a verb? So the syntax is recognized as adjective (or adverb, depending on if it’s modifying green or ideas)-adjective-noun-verb-adverb? But in the second sentence, there isn’t a verb since sleep is acting as a modifier for ideas, so it’s adjective-noun-(misplaced) adjective-adverb-adjective so it isn’t recognized as a sentence?

3

MeepTheChangeling t1_j6mf9lz wrote

Nothing. Your CPU can do everything your GPU can. At like, 1:100000000th the speed. Do you want to play your games at about 1 frame every 3 minutes? Then use your CPU.

Then why have a CPU? Why not just a GPU? Because to make the GPU do the type of math that is needed to draw images very very very very fast, it has to be made poopy at other kinds of math. This isn't a software problem either, it's a hardware problem. IE the little squiggles we etch into crystals to zot electricity through to make the crystal think for us need to be drawn in certain ways to work how we want, and we can't have two doodles overlapping each other.

A CPU can do almost anything, but it's slow because of it. A GPU can do graphics (and certain types of AI work) very very very fast, but can't do anything else quickly (or in some cases, at all). So you need both. Unless you don't give a hoot about fancy graphics and are okay with your computer being able to produce graphics that are on par with 80s and VERY early 90s PC graphics only.

2

XJDenton t1_j6mf235 wrote

A CPU is a dremel: can be used for a lot of different tasks and pretty good at most of them.

A GPU is a chainsaw: far more narrow in what its useful for but far more efficient for that what it is good at.

And while you could cut down a tree with a dremel, there are good reasons to use a chainsaw, especially if you need to cut down a certain number of trees per hour.

2