Can cpu act as gpu?

If gpus can help cpus complete once cpu-only tasks, like encoding videos, can cpus act as gpus and help improve performance or perhaps completely replace integrated gpus (for computers that only require nominal graphics processing power)?

Also, can gpus do anything cpus can do? or is it limited to encoding videos and things like 3d software/autocad, which uses CUDA, i think?

Is there any technology that acts like a backwards CUDA, where the cpu helps the gpu accomplish tasks?

 

If Im not mistaken...CPUs can render graphics on a software level...but youd have to make a whole subsystem for the computer to have a video output since there would be no GPU.

And yes, GPU's can do anything CPU's can, theyre just much harder to program for than a CPU is...GPU's are way more direct and to the point where as CPUs are more general...make sense?

 

yep, CPUs can definitely process video(not including the video output problem mentioned above). The reason a GPU exists in the first place is because GPU architecture is made to process video BETTER than a cpu.

 

when win 7 was in beta. Microsoft did a demo that showed Crysis running on low (all settings on low) on a Core i7 with out GPU support. I don't know what happened with it but it technically is possible. but GPU's are far more efficient at graphics processing.

 

GPUs have dedicated hardware that is suited specifically for the tasks that are required in graphics rendering. CPUs have some of the same hardware, but a lot of it has to be implemented in software.

It can work, but it is dog slow compared to current GPUs.

 

thanks for the replies, guys, so does this mean that cpus can augment gpu's processing power, meaning both of them working to render graphics at same time?

and since amd took over ati, doesnt this mean that ati gpus now have access to amd's manufacturing/hardware/technology, like 28nm processing?

 

Read about AMD Fusion. It essentially AMD's on going plan to merge the GPU with the CPU. Although CPU's are good for general tasks, they are not highly parallel nor do they offer (as mentioned earlier) many hardware units that only make sense in a graphics environment. Software renderers can be fast*, and some can even emulate shaders (it depends on the implementation) and other advanced techniques at the expense of speed. Oddly enough, many of those pre-rendered movies (such as the intro movies to games) are rendered by software, due to many enhanced visual quality. Of course, that likely took many hours... even on a server farm. On the exact opposite side, Nvidia (and probably ATI) has been working on allowing programs typically written for CPUs to run on GPUs. If you're thinking, "Does this mean X program will run on my GPU?" the answer is "No!". I just meant that C/C++ programs can be compiled for and run on the GPU...

* but again, not that fast

As for CPUs augmenting GPUs, it is more efficient simply to have the CPU continuing issuing commands (which can be very intensive) to the GPU rather than it wasting its time trying to draw, leaving the GPU idle. Also, I'm not entirely sure who owns the manufacturing process, considering that AMD uses Global Foundries fabs to manufacture their GPUs. ATI graphics cards seem to be built on TSMC processes, AMD processors seem to be built on GF processes. Fusion might mess my understanding up...

 

You're a bit behind the times; and you have it backwards.