> If you can afford to start from scratch, you can lose a lot of this baggage. Effectively, this argument is much like saying that your personal workloads do

> If you can afford to start from scratch, you can lose a lot of this baggage. Effectively, this argument is much like saying that your personal workloads don't use AVX and demanding that Intel tape out a whole different die without it. You would very rightly be laughed out of town for even suggesting it. Much like the economics of cryptomining cards that lack display outputs, this comes down to whether there is actually enough of a market to justify taping out a whole specialty product just for this one niche, vs the economies of scale that come from mass production. AFter all that is the logic behind using a GPU in the first place, instead of a custom ASIC for your task (like Google's Tensor Processing Unit). On the whole it is probably cheaper if you just suck it up and accept that you're not going to use every last feature of the card on every single workload. It's simply too expensive to tape out a different product for every workload. This only gets more complicated when you consider that many types of GPGPU computation actually do use things like the texture units, since it allows you to coalesce memory requests with 2D/3D locality rather than simple 1D locality. I would also not be surprised if delta compression were active in CUDA mode, since it is a very generic way to increase bandwidth. The GPGPU community absolutely does use the whole buffalo here, there is very little hardware that is purely display-specific. If you want hardware that is more "compute-oriented" than the consumer stuff, that's why there's GP100 and GV100 parts. If you want even more compute-oriented than that, you're better off looking at something like that's essentially fixed-function hardware dedicated to your particular task, rather than a general-purpose GPU unit. So, it doesn't really make any economic sense.