3 ms·
I would like to point out that their research seems lacking. The industry is not "moving to one big GPU". The industry has already moved to 4, 6, or 8 "big" G
by highpass 10y ago
I would like to point out that their research seems lacking.
The industry is not "moving to one big GPU".
The industry has already moved to 4, 6, or 8 "big" GPUs per station/node.
- intoverflow2 10y agoI found that comment bizarre, someone correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I've seen in my own experience and other people in my field (3D CG) multi-GPUs seem to scale ridiculously well. Seemed more of a case that no one wants to actually code for OpenCL on AMD...
- glenneroo 10y agoDepends on the tools. RedShift for instance told us right after 10xx Nvidia cards came out that if we have lots of vertices (> 1 or 10 million - I don't remember exactly), you benefit from more RAM so get a Titan X. If you want to render anything with less, get more GPUs since you can't share RAM anyways, but the number of cores will help you.
- karpodiem 10y agoThis is a well honed Apple bullshit technique called 'clouding' - http://www.fakesteve.net/2010/06/there-is-no-spoon.html http://www.fakesteve.net/2010/06/there-is-no-spoon.html
- mikhailt 10y agoWhich industry are you talking about? I have not seen a single workstation with more than 1-2 GPUs. You are talking about 8 * ~250W common pro GPUs, 2KW that is going to be absolutely nightmare to cool/quiet in a normal workstation case. I am absolutely curious as to what you're talking about because I have never seen this before, please correct me because I want to learn more. Apple is talking about prosumers, not the rendering firms that need such massive GPU workloads. They'd be better off using server farms to render that much work. No one is going to work next to a noisy workstation with fans that has to disperse 2,000 watt worth of heat at full load.