Anyway, it doesn't mean the cards themselves would need to have such huge amount of memory, it means they are now able to handle a memory address space that vastly exceeds their physical memory. Graphics cards don't need to have everything in local memory.
I've replied this below a good number of times below, but for completeness sake: this is not new. Not even for AMD, which i'm unable to find the exact number of addressable bits for each GPU family but they all support unified virtual memory with 64 bits CPUs since the days of the HD7700. Hell, Linux has support for this feature since 3.20.
nVidia? CUDA 5 has you covered as well.
My point is: current GPU offerings can already address way, way more memory than they usually physically carry. No idea why someone would push this as a selling point other than 512GB sounds like a large number to people who don't know better.
Side question: How did AMD validate that their architecture works without actually being able to fabricate an actual board in practice, simulation?
You don't need to actually hook up memory to see if a memory bus works correctly. I used to test addressing on 8-bit CPUs using a Tektronix logic analyzer back in college.
Keep in mind large address spaces were here long before Vega. Hell, AMDs own "Graphics Core Next" architecture already supports flat 64-bit addressing, an that's been out since 2011.
Don't be a moron. You already got virtual memory mapping over huge address spaces on previous-gen GPU products, both from AMD and nVidia. Vega looks like a nice architecture but all these hyperbolic performance claims based solely on having 512TB of addressable space are utter bullshit. I'm actually surprised that most people here can't tell the difference.
Ah, and i'm pretty sure that "future-proofing" a GPU architecture that will be obsolete 5 years from now was certainly not a consideration for AMD engineers working on this.
Pretty much all of it. I'm having a hard time finding out the number of addressing bits supported by, say, an Arctic Lake (4xx) GPU, but considering that AMD's GCN offered unified memory on the entire 64 bit space since 2011 and nVidia offers 49 bits of unified address space since CUDA 5 it surprises me that someone tried to make a selling point out of this feature.
They went as far as comparing a CPU render against their new GPU. WTF.
The only reason i can imagine someone would try to push this feature is that 512TB sounds like a huge number. There's no practical application for it in the near future, and any benefit of such a large addressing space you already got on previous architectures, both from AMD and its competition.
I really want to see AMD releasing a CPU competitive with Intel's latest offerings. I love my 8-core FX, but the real reason I bought it is that it costs almost 1/3rd compared to the competition.
But this is not new at all. IIRC Nvidia's CUDA 5 already gives you 49 bits of unified address space. Don't really know the addressing limitations on previous AMD architectures, but I doubt it was substantially lower.
Realistically, large address spaces when you can only practically fill 0.05-0.1% means little for performance. I don't want to attack AMD with this, who usually manufacture really good GPU hardware, but this sounds like a marketing gimmick and nothing more. I particularly enjoyed the "hours to real-time" comparison... against a CPU.
512Gb GPUs? Doubt you'll see that anytime soon. The very largest memory on any commercial GPU is AMD's own FirePro W9100, at 32gb. It is more of a cost issue than a limitation on addresable space; 64Gb is right around the corner though.
Most high end GPU cards available have 8Gb, a large number of budget versions settle for 4Gb, and only a few offer 16Gb. Marketing this as a stand out point is iffy.
So, a guy crashes because he's videochatting while driving, and sues Apple for not developing a patent which would've prevented him from being an imbecile?
This. Very much this. Their testing methodology is perfectly ok and it hints at a real issue with MBPs memory management. People should be raising questions to Apple instead of doubting CRs findings.
Why? They're just reporting how devices work to consumers. If i buy a car and it gives me 4hs on a full tank most people, me included, don't want to understand the mechanical reason why it happens.
There's plenty of fantastic Android phones besides Google offerings. I'm very partial to OnePlus these days - the bang-for-the-buck ratio on their products is ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, it doesn't mean the cards themselves would need to have such huge amount of memory, it means they are now able to handle a memory address space that vastly exceeds their physical memory. Graphics cards don't need to have everything in local memory.
I've replied this below a good number of times below, but for completeness sake: this is not new. Not even for AMD, which i'm unable to find the exact number of addressable bits for each GPU family but they all support unified virtual memory with 64 bits CPUs since the days of the HD7700. Hell, Linux has support for this feature since 3.20.
nVidia? CUDA 5 has you covered as well.
My point is: current GPU offerings can already address way, way more memory than they usually physically carry. No idea why someone would push this as a selling point other than 512GB sounds like a large number to people who don't know better.
You really need to re-read my parent post.
Side question: How did AMD validate that their architecture works without actually being able to fabricate an actual board in practice, simulation?
You don't need to actually hook up memory to see if a memory bus works correctly. I used to test addressing on 8-bit CPUs using a Tektronix logic analyzer back in college.
Keep in mind large address spaces were here long before Vega. Hell, AMDs own "Graphics Core Next" architecture already supports flat 64-bit addressing, an that's been out since 2011.
Don't be a moron. You already got virtual memory mapping over huge address spaces on previous-gen GPU products, both from AMD and nVidia. Vega looks like a nice architecture but all these hyperbolic performance claims based solely on having 512TB of addressable space are utter bullshit. I'm actually surprised that most people here can't tell the difference.
Ah, and i'm pretty sure that "future-proofing" a GPU architecture that will be obsolete 5 years from now was certainly not a consideration for AMD engineers working on this.
Pretty much all of it. I'm having a hard time finding out the number of addressing bits supported by, say, an Arctic Lake (4xx) GPU, but considering that AMD's GCN offered unified memory on the entire 64 bit space since 2011 and nVidia offers 49 bits of unified address space since CUDA 5 it surprises me that someone tried to make a selling point out of this feature.
They went as far as comparing a CPU render against their new GPU. WTF.
The only reason i can imagine someone would try to push this feature is that 512TB sounds like a huge number. There's no practical application for it in the near future, and any benefit of such a large addressing space you already got on previous architectures, both from AMD and its competition.
Oh, it is nice, don't get me wrong :) I'm just saying that promoting this as a dealbreaker is insane.
Not really, sadly enough. Intel's single core performance is so above AMDs that for most computational tasks it makes little impact.
I really want to see AMD releasing a CPU competitive with Intel's latest offerings. I love my 8-core FX, but the real reason I bought it is that it costs almost 1/3rd compared to the competition.
But this is not new at all. IIRC Nvidia's CUDA 5 already gives you 49 bits of unified address space. Don't really know the addressing limitations on previous AMD architectures, but I doubt it was substantially lower.
Realistically, large address spaces when you can only practically fill 0.05-0.1% means little for performance. I don't want to attack AMD with this, who usually manufacture really good GPU hardware, but this sounds like a marketing gimmick and nothing more. I particularly enjoyed the "hours to real-time" comparison... against a CPU.
Wow, marketing lingo is eerily efficient on you.
512Gb GPUs? Doubt you'll see that anytime soon. The very largest memory on any commercial GPU is AMD's own FirePro W9100, at 32gb. It is more of a cost issue than a limitation on addresable space; 64Gb is right around the corner though.
Oh, I know. That is still only 64Tb...
Most high end GPU cards available have 8Gb, a large number of budget versions settle for 4Gb, and only a few offer 16Gb. Marketing this as a stand out point is iffy.
So, a guy crashes because he's videochatting while driving, and sues Apple for not developing a patent which would've prevented him from being an imbecile?
We're overdue for a meteorite and a start over.
Kinda surprised that one isn't in the list. It had close to 2800 comments.
Donald Trump Wins US Presidency
They had a control group.
This. Very much this. Their testing methodology is perfectly ok and it hints at a real issue with MBPs memory management. People should be raising questions to Apple instead of doubting CRs findings.
Why? They're just reporting how devices work to consumers. If i buy a car and it gives me 4hs on a full tank most people, me included, don't want to understand the mechanical reason why it happens.
Why don't you post a link to The Mirror as well? At least they don't dance around and call it a lost Nazi UFO base right away.
What the fuck is going on with this site?
Do any of those non-Google phones get software updates as often and as quickly as Google provides for their phones?
Yes. Samsung, LG and OP are usually pretty speedy with their updates.
How many of them are made by Chinese companies?
Pretty much all of them. And i mean all cellphones, Android or not.
For fucks sake. Clinton lost. Will it take much longer for you guys to shut up about HRC?
There's plenty of fantastic Android phones besides Google offerings. I'm very partial to OnePlus these days - the bang-for-the-buck ratio on their products is ridiculous.
Um, you realize the topic of the story you're commenting on right?
Try Battletech. Aliens. Titanfall. Starship Troopers (the book).
Thank you Trump!