GPU vs CPU for Matrix Calculation: Which Is Faster?

• Introduction
• Step-by-Step Guide
• Code Example
• Additional Notes
• Summary
• Conclusion
• References

Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) are specifically designed for parallel processing, making them highly efficient for handling large datasets and performing repetitive calculations. This inherent strength of GPUs is particularly beneficial in computer graphics, where tasks often involve applying the same operation to numerous vertices. While a Central Processing Unit (CPU) might be faster for a single calculation, GPUs excel when performing the same operation on thousands, or even millions, of vertices simultaneously.

GPUs excel at parallel processing, making them ideal for tasks like matrix transformations on numerous vertices.

While a CPU might outperform a GPU for a single matrix calculation:

glm::mat4 model = glm::translate(glm::mat4(1.0f), position);

the GPU shines when performing the same operation on thousands of vertices in parallel.

Consider calculating the normal matrix. If it's done per object:

glm::mat3 normalMatrix = glm::transpose(glm::inverse(glm::mat3(model)));

the CPU is sufficient. However, for per-vertex calculations in skinning, the GPU is more efficient.

Transferring matrices to the GPU does incur overhead:

glUniformMatrix4fv(modelLoc, 1, GL_FALSE, glm::value_ptr(model));

but this is often outweighed by the GPU's parallel processing power.

For large matrices or numerous small matrices, GPUs often provide significant speedups. However, the specific problem and hardware influence the optimal choice.

Ultimately, the decision to offload calculations to the GPU depends on the specific use case, data size, and frequency of calculations. Profiling your application can help determine the best approach.

This C++ code compares the performance of CPU and GPU for matrix calculations. It generates random vertices and applies a model transformation, first on the CPU by iterating through each vertex, then on the GPU using vertex shaders. The code measures and prints the execution time for both methods, demonstrating the GPU's advantage in parallel processing, especially for large datasets.

This example demonstrates the performance difference between CPU and GPU for matrix calculations in a simplified vertex transformation scenario.

Note: This is a conceptual example and requires a working OpenGL environment and libraries like GLFW, GLEW, and GLM to compile and run.

#include <GL/glew.h>
#include <GLFW/glfw3.h>
#include <glm/glm.hpp>
#include <glm/gtc/matrix_transform.hpp>
#include <glm/gtc/type_ptr.hpp>
#include <vector>
#include <chrono>
#include <iostream>

// Vertex structure
struct Vertex {
    glm::vec3 position;
};

int main() {
    // Initialization (GLFW, GLEW, shader loading - omitted for brevity)

    // Number of vertices
    const int numVertices = 100000;

    // Generate random vertex positions
    std::vector<Vertex> vertices(numVertices);
    for (auto& vertex : vertices) {
        vertex.position = glm::vec3(rand() % 100, rand() % 100, rand() % 100);
    }

    // Create Vertex Buffer Object (VBO)
    GLuint VBO;
    glGenBuffers(1, &VBO);
    glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, VBO);
    glBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, sizeof(Vertex) * vertices.size(), &vertices[0], GL_STATIC_DRAW);

    // ... (Vertex Attribute setup - omitted for brevity)

    // Model matrix
    glm::mat4 model = glm::translate(glm::mat4(1.0f), glm::vec3(10.0f, 5.0f, 0.0f));

    // Get uniform location
    GLint modelLoc = glGetUniformLocation(shaderProgram, "model");

    // CPU Calculation
    auto startCPU = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
    for (auto& vertex : vertices) {
        vertex.position = glm::vec3(model * glm::vec4(vertex.position, 1.0f));
    }
    auto endCPU = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();

    // Update VBO with CPU calculated data (for comparison)
    glBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, sizeof(Vertex) * vertices.size(), &vertices[0], GL_STATIC_DRAW);

    // GPU Calculation
    auto startGPU = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
    glUniformMatrix4fv(modelLoc, 1, GL_FALSE, glm::value_ptr(model));
    glDrawArrays(GL_POINTS, 0, numVertices); // Draw to trigger GPU calculation
    auto endGPU = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();

    // Calculate time taken
    auto durationCPU = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::microseconds>(endCPU - startCPU).count();
    auto durationGPU = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::microseconds>(endGPU - startGPU).count();

    std::cout << "CPU Calculation Time: " << durationCPU << " microseconds" << std::endl;
    std::cout << "GPU Calculation Time: " << durationGPU << " microseconds" << std::endl;

    // ... (Cleanup - omitted for brevity)

    return 0;
}

Explanation:

1. Initialization: Sets up OpenGL context, shaders, and generates random vertex data.
2. CPU Calculation: Iterates through each vertex and applies the model matrix transformation.
3. GPU Calculation: Sends the model matrix to the shader and uses glDrawArrays to trigger the vertex shader, which performs the matrix multiplication on the GPU for each vertex in parallel.
4. Timing: Measures the execution time for both CPU and GPU calculations.
5. Output: Prints the time taken by each method, highlighting the potential performance difference.

This example showcases how the GPU can significantly outperform the CPU for parallel tasks like vertex transformations, especially with a large number of vertices. However, remember that actual performance depends on various factors like hardware, data size, and specific calculations.

• Vertex Shaders: The example highlights the use of vertex shaders for GPU calculations. Vertex shaders run on each vertex individually, enabling massive parallelization for transformations.
• Data Transfer Overhead: While not explicitly measured in the example, transferring data between CPU and GPU (like the vertex data and model matrix) does have overhead. This cost is often outweighed by the GPU's parallel processing power, especially for larger datasets and more complex calculations.
• Shader Complexity: More complex shader code can impact performance. Optimizing shaders for the target GPU architecture is crucial for maximizing performance.
• GPU Architecture: Different GPUs have varying architectures and capabilities. High-end GPUs generally offer more processing cores and faster memory bandwidth, leading to better performance.
• Problem Size: The size of the data and the number of calculations significantly influence the performance difference between CPU and GPU. For smaller datasets or simpler calculations, the CPU might be sufficient.
• Profiling: Always profile your application to identify bottlenecks and determine the optimal approach for your specific use case. Tools like NVIDIA Nsight and AMD Radeon GPU Profiler can help analyze GPU performance.
• Alternatives to Immediate Mode: The example uses immediate mode (glDrawArrays) for simplicity. Modern OpenGL applications typically use vertex arrays or buffer objects for more efficient rendering.
• Other GPU Applications: GPUs are not limited to graphics. Their parallel processing power is also leveraged in fields like machine learning, scientific computing, and cryptocurrency mining.

Key Takeaway: While GPUs excel at parallel processing, the decision to offload matrix calculations depends on the specific application. Profiling is crucial to determine the most efficient approach.

In conclusion, GPUs, with their parallel processing power, are exceptionally well-suited for handling large-scale matrix calculations, especially those involving thousands of vertices in computer graphics. While a CPU might be faster for individual matrix operations, GPUs excel when performing the same operation on numerous data points simultaneously. The choice between CPU and GPU depends on the specific use case, data size, and frequency of calculations. For tasks involving large matrices or numerous small matrices processed in parallel, GPUs often provide significant speedups. However, it's essential to consider the overhead of transferring data to the GPU. Profiling your application is crucial to determine the most efficient approach for your specific needs.

• Should the normal matrix be calculated on the cpu or gpu? : r ... | Posted by u/[Deleted Account] - 12 votes and 25 comments
• opengl - Should calculations be done on the CPU or GPU? - Game ... | Oct 7, 2019 ... But you wouldn't want to precompute the matrix transform for each vertex on the CPU, that would be more efficient in the GPU vertex shader. In ...
• Matrix transformations on CPU or GPU : r/opengl | Posted by u/nonsane_matty - 8 votes and 18 comments
• Should the modelview and projection matrices be calculated in the ... | Jul 2, 2012 ... If you calculate matrix in cpu, it would cost you few instructions and 16 * float size data transfer to GPU. ... calculate the matrices in ...
• How much faster is GPU compare to CPU - GPU - Julia ... | Hi, I heard the amazing things about GPU and how much faster it can beat CPU. But I don’t know what kind of speed up is expected. So I ran a matrix multiplication to do the comparison. I ran my experiment on a server that has a Intel Gold 6148 CPU, which has 20 cores at 2.40 GHz frequency, and a GPU of NVIDIA V100 16GB memory. For CPU I used OpenBLAS library, and CuBLAS for the GPU. I think both libraries are highly optimized and should be a fair comparison. The OpenBLAS thread count default on...
• Lots of small matrices - CUDA Programming and Performance ... | Hello everyone, So, from what I’ve read, CUDA+GPU can achieve impressive speedups in linear algebra for large matrices. I have a different problem that I would like to solve, concerning which I am hoping for some advice. The matrices in my application are fairly small, only around 80x80 to 100x100… but I have 40,000 of them. I must explicitly invert all of them on each iteration of the calculation (I actually need the inverse). On my current computer, I clocked inverting just one matrix at app...
• Skinning on the GPU vs the CPU - OpenGL: Advanced Coding ... | So recently I have delved into modern openGL. I am learning about shaders–vertex, and fragment for now–and wondering if I should use them for skinning. The reason I switched to modern openGL and started thinking about this, is because my comp has 32 megs of VRAM and using the vertex arrays with the fixed pipeline was not working. I was getting some weird behaviors (vertices appeared to be sticking into place, and popping back randomly) So I switched to VBOs and just went down the rabbit whole. ...
• r - For which statistical methods are GPUs faster than CPUs ... | Feb 24, 2013 ... A GPU kernel for calulating a matrix multiplication would look something like __kernel void Multiply ( __global float * A, __global float ...
• Linear system problems - GPU - Julia Programming Language | Hello, I’m writing some code that solves Ax=b, where A can be quite big (say 10000x10000, hopefully bigger in the future). A is not sparse (at least for now) and might be poorly conditioned. Might even have multiple solutions. Using A\b is not working great so far, giving me results with fairly large errors (i.e., A(A\b) is sometimes 3 times a certain element of x). Directly inverting A (x = inv(A)*b) doesn’t use much more memory, is 3x slower (I expected worse), but very accurate. However, ...