Please, it is a word processor. It requires very little in either GPU or CPU.
DirectX 9 has a limit of 65k for the number of instructions on each stream processor. Even word processors blew away that boundary a long time ago.
DirectX 10 removes that limit, but it's still expensive to use the GPU to just do some processing without a lot of data, due to the way stream processors work.
Perhaps a virtual machine or even just the OS itself is a better example. The point is not everything we do uses a lot of data with very few instructions.
CPU's are needed for intensive processing, like rendering with Lightwave or 3DS Max.
Actually, rendering is very easy to parallelize, and some parts of ray tracing can be done on a GPU. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing some real time single bounce ray tracing done in some games. We're practically to that point where it's possible with our shaders. In fact, I think a lot of today's shaders borrow from ray tracing techniques.
They are both needed in their respective fields. And neither can replace the other.
I would agree! That was the point I was trying to make:
"If you have very little data to crunch and lots of instructions, however, the GPU will be slower than the CPU. Much, much slower."
Most people browse the web and don't play games.. You get ripped off by shops telling you you need the latest CPU to do this faster.. It makes no difference.
I totally agree. Web browsing never takes much power in any way. I find it amusing that it's boasted about so much whenever some new computer is released.
You don't even need fast ram, just make sure you have enough (1gb at the moment or 2gb for gaming) - Quantity over quality.
Agreed. I find that more than anything else, having lots of RAM makes things a lot faster. I'd double your numbers for Vista, though.
