Board index Other Hangar talk

AMD Declares 4GB of GPU VRAM ‘Not Enough’ for Today’s Games

Talk about (almost) anything, as long as it is no serious FlightGear talk and does not fit in the other subforums.
Forum rules
Please refrain from discussing politics.

AMD Declares 4GB of GPU VRAM ‘Not Enough’ for Today’s Games

Postby Hooray » Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:43 pm

See: https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/3114 ... days-games

AMD is arguing that 4GB GPUs are effectively obsolete, based on performance data showing a distinct advantage for GPUs with more than 4GB of VRAM.

The company’s argument boils down to the following slide:
Image
Independent reviews back up the idea that anyone buying an RX 5500 XT is leaving performance on the table. The average gap is small — only about 5 percent for 1440p averages and 9 percent for 1440p minimums according to TechSpot — but the relatively small average obscures an important point: The titles with the largest division between 4GB and 8GB versions of the Radeon 5500 XT tend to be newer games. TechSpot reports Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is 22 percent faster on the 8GB card compared with the 4GB. So does AMD.
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 12058
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: AMD Declares 4GB of GPU VRAM ‘Not Enough’ for Today’s Ga

Postby V12 » Sat Jun 13, 2020 12:29 pm

New P3Dv5 has problem on 4GB VRAM, sometimes on 8GB too. But it looks like is problem of the MS DX12.
Fly high, fly fast - fly Concorde !
User avatar
V12
 
Posts: 2120
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:27 pm
Location: LZIB
Callsign: BAWV12

Re: AMD Declares 4GB of GPU VRAM ‘Not Enough’ for Today’s Ga

Postby Hooray » Sat Jun 13, 2020 2:27 pm

https://devblogs.nvidia.com/gpudirect-storage/
https://blocksandfiles.com/2019/08/06/n ... e-storage/

GPUDirect Storage: A Direct Path Between Storage and GPU Memory

Keeping GPUs Busy

As AI and HPC datasets continue to increase in size, the time spent loading data for a given application begins to place a strain on the total application’s performance. When considering end-to-end application performance, fast GPUs are increasingly starved by slow I/O.

I/O, the process of loading data from storage to GPUs for processing, has historically been controlled by the CPU. As computation shifts from slower CPUs to faster GPUs, I/O becomes more of a bottleneck to overall application performance.

Just as GPUDirect RDMA (Remote Direct Memory Address) improved bandwidth and latency when moving data directly between a network interface card (NIC) and GPU memory, a new technology called GPUDirect Storage enables a direct data path between local or remote storage, like NVMe or NVMe over Fabric (NVMe-oF), and GPU memory. Both GPUDirect RDMA and GPUDirect Storage avoid extra copies through a bounce buffer in the CPU’s memory and enable a direct memory access (DMA) engine near the NIC or storage to move data on a direct path into or out of GPU memory – all without burdening the CPU or GPU. This is illustrated in Figure 1. For GPUDirect Storage, storage location doesn’t matter; it could be inside an enclosure, within the rack, or connected over the network. Whereas the bandwidth from CPU system memory (SysMem) to GPUs in an NVIDIA DGX-2 is limited to 50 GB/s, the bandwidth from SysMem, from many local drives and from many NICs can be combined to achieve an upper bandwidth limit of nearly 200 GB/s in a DGX-2.


it will be interesting to see if/when and how FlightGear is going to be able to use, let alone saturate, such a GPU, given that the multicore (r)evolution has been happening without any major architectural changes implemented to address the "new" situation - keep in mind, back then (~2006) this was a controversial topic on the devel list at the time[1][2], but these days all remaining core devs apparently agree that FlightGear isn't making proper use of multi-core systems that are indeed commonplace today, and that the core development community is indeed hoping to change that in the future.

So it seems, that the project is -once again- at the crossroads of history, i.e. of adapting its design to address a new reality due to enormous progress in how hardware is developing, and now it's no longer just the CPU, but also GPUs that are going to change drastically.


[1] New Architecture for Flightgear
[2] Suggestion to make FlightGear multiplayer compliant with HLA
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 12058
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am


Return to Hangar talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests