4 ms·
I'm curious about the larger memory bus width. GPUs are still considered sub-par for real-time audio applications because of the memory bottleneck, despite thei
by jvoorhis 15y ago
I'm curious about the larger memory bus width. GPUs are still considered sub-par for real-time audio applications because of the memory bottleneck, despite their numerical computing power.
- barrkel 15y agoI expect that's down to latency rather than throughput. Back in the day, I recall some people working with audio preferring ISA sound cards to PCI sound cards, because the latency was worse with PCI; but PCI has orders of magnitude more bandwidth.
- sliverstorm 15y agoIt would be unsurprising if latency were the issue. Think about it- a GPU with a turnaround time of 1/60th of a second is plenty fast for any standard monitor.
- vilya 15y agoOnly if you're uploading data to it just once per frame. And you're not doing stereo.
- sliverstorm 15y agoSure, 1/60th of a second may not be the exact right number, but the point is, I would think that traditionally a GPU designer wouldn't exactly have a tight latency budget. Even if you're in stereo (1/120) and you write a new image to the buffer 100 times per frame (1/12000) that still gives you 40,000 cycles on a 500MHz clock.
- DiabloD3 15y agoOpenCL has no concept of "frames per second". The turn around time is higher than the speed of your OS's thread scheduler.
- DiabloD3 15y agoI can queue an OpenCL kernel, execute it, and read the response back from the OpenCL buffer in a fraction of a millisecond. What sort of audio work are you doing that requires less than 1ms latency?