3 ms·
I'm being very, very conservative with my estimates here. Based on the renderers I know, I could have easily tweaked the numbers to go up to 8000 full screen te
by gmueckl 5mo ago
I'm being very, very conservative with my estimates here. Based on the renderers I know, I could have easily tweaked the numbers to go up to 8000 full screen texture reads per second. That doesn't include texture or geometry or BVH reads or any memory writes. That is all in addition to those operations.
- nearbuy 5mo agoBut do you think you'll reach 1.8 TB/s?
- gmueckl 5mo agoQuite likely, but the transfer throughput is required in bursts, not necessarily continously. Let me put it this way: what I care about is how quickly data arrives after a bunch of shader threads request it. Throughput is one way for hardware to reduce that time. The other way is to hide the latency (GPUs do a lot to keep themselves busy while waiting for memory), but those strategies can only do so much. Lower memory throughput almost always leads to a longer runtime of GPU calls in practice, and thus lower update rates.
- nearbuy 5mo agoEmpirically, these benchmarks are showing it doesn't make much difference once you reach this level of bandwidth: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/early-rtx-5090d-v2-benchmarks-suggest-that-maybe-384-bit-memory-is-just-fine-after-all-nerfed-china-market-gpu-runs-within-2-2-percent-of-5090d-in-some-tests https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/early-rtx-50...