| Fei-Hung said: Dunno who this is but he has a different take on it and a the ssd. Worth a watch. https://youtu.be/PW-7Y7GbsiY |
I've been subscribed to Coreteks for a while now; he makes a compelling argument here which is basically AMD's solution inspired by Nvidia's solution, and Nvidia solution is to make room for two accelerators (compress/decompress) in the Turing architecture. AMD has implemented a similar solution in Sony's Custom IO of the APU. I really liked the part where he detailed Nvidia's perspective: Math is free, but Memory and Communication are expensive, meaning, to me, the bottlenecks.
I'm picturing the frame drops one gets constantly in multiplayer games. They start out very high (like what the full potential of the GPU/CPU can give), but tank in very intensive fight sequences where there maybe a lot of action or people in one session. How much of that frame drop does it belong to the CPU/GPU not keeping up or because there a huge bottleneck in Memory and Communication? Once these bottlenecks are improved, how much less will the CPU/GPU be stressed doing redundancies and freed up to perform different computational tasks? (Efficiency) After all, there is a saying that you are only as strong as your weakest link, and I truly believe that disk drives and hard drives (even some SSDs) are far too slow too keep up with the video games we have today.
It will be a very interesting upcoming generation, that is for sure. I'm exited, and Coretek's video is totally worth a view, thanks for posting it.
