Pemalite said:
God dammit. Why can't the explain how they achieved what they did with this cache? I want details, not claims.
What kind of cache is it? Is it using existing DRAM on the GPU? A proper high-speed cache on the GPU itself? Is it powered by combustible kittens from outer space?
***
It's use however is going to be extremely limited.
Low-End GPU's already have more memory than they could ever possibly hope to use...
The mid-range could see some benefit, especially when manufacturers sell a version of a GPU with less memory to save on costs. (Like the Radeon RX 480.)
The High-End typically always has enough memory to make such a feature worthless anyway, with a few-edge case exceptions like Fury and Fury X, but that was because it was using such a new memory technology. (HBM/Stacked memory connected via an Interposer.)
If this "cache" takes up transistors and thus drives up costs and it's benefit is only in low-memory situations, then I would rather they didn't bother and just threw more GCN pipelines in.
|
Thanks for the clarification, that's about what I thought.
What about tasks with high RAM requirements and less processing like video editing and stuff? I'm assuming a high end card with lots of RAM but an application that needs even more RAM. Could that be a benefit?
