| JEMC said: I don't care much about smartphones, and I tend to upgrade only when the one I use starts to fail, so I only have two reasons to care about LPDDR5: 1) That means that DDR5 for PCs is getting closer, which is both good and bad, as always. 2) That kind of RAM paired with a tweaked Nvidia Xavier SoC (details were revealed yesterday, with 8 Carmel AMR64 CPU cores, 512 Volta GPU cores, 16GB 256-bit LPDDR4 memory interface and capable of operating at 10, 15 and/or 30W) would make for a great Switch 2, capable of offering equal or better graphics than PS4/X1. But I think this is not the best thread to talk about it. |
I am a teach-enthusiast through and through. :P
Xavier+LPDDR5 with 100-200GB/s of bandwidth would be intense, but I don't expect that in a Switch successor, mostly because of how large and power hungry that chip is... And the fact it likely doesn't have an appropriate memory controller for LPDDR5 support anyway.
The real question is if desktop DDR5 will be deviating from LPDDR5 and to how much of an extent, keen for DDR5 to hurry up though, mostly for the benefits it brings to APU's.
| HoloDust said: I say...fuck them...for now. I've been with ATI/AMD for a long, long time (my last nVidia card prior to them was GeForce4 Ti4400), and I finally decided last year to go back to nVidia. Once AMD get their shit together (when it comes to GPUs) and makes something actually worth buying again, I'll reconsider my decision. |
AMD's GPU hardware leaves much to be desired, no doubt about it.
But on the driver front I find AMD's drivers to be a step up over nVidia's for the time being. (I say time being, because when AMD screws something up, they really screw something up.)
Of course I only have anecdotal experiences to go by with the nVidia and AMD GPU's at my disposal.
I also find nVidia's drivers to be a little more resource intensive than AMD's. - It's not so much of an issue on my faster rigs, but on the old Core 2 Quad rig, any CPU cycles I can spare is a good thing.
But if it weren't for nVidia... The fastest GPU I could drop in that rig would have been the Radeon R7 240 rather than the Geforce 1030, AMD is just to power hungry and have no low profile cards here.
So essentially I give up a bit of CPU time for a massive amount of GPU gain... It does mean that games like Overwatch that relies heavily on the CPU does struggle in intensive moments (I.E. 40fps), but games like Battlefield 1 runs great.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
