what workloads can saturate a PCIe x16 slot? > PCIe v.2

>>56401678

>pcie and graphics cards are only used for gaymes

>>>/v/
>>>/trash/

>>56401678
>even modern GPUs playing AAA games don't use the full bandwidth of PCIe v.2
Actually, surprisingly, some now do.

Look at the Fury/FuryX - the 4GB of VRAM is limiting them enough in some modern games that they're constantly swapping out pages over that pci-e link - the faster it is, the better for those cards.
Of course the real solution isn't increase link width, it's just to increase vram so the swapping doesn't need to occur.

>so what's the point of rolling out v.4 on desktops and laptops???
Power savings actually, PCI-e 4.0 16x will be nice sure, but the real reason is because most things won't need anywhere near and can drop lanes as appropriate.

>>56401678
Rendering an image of your mother

>>56401678
does anyone knows how much bandwidth rendering takes? (blender, maya)

Are there any 31.51 GB/s SSDs out yet? :^)

>>56401789
See >>56401748
Pretty much the same situation - lots if your rendering a highly complex scene (with lots of textures! - they're the killer, meshes take up fuckall room) on a low VRAM card.
If you've got enough VRAM to cover all the assets required for the frame being rendered - then really bugger all bandwidth will be used after the VRAM is filled.

 yes > /sys/devices/pci 

>>56401796
Yes.

But you can't afford one.
>And if I've somehow mistaken you and you really can personally afford one, well holy fuck what are you doing on this place - laughing it up at poor people?

>>56401817
Wew lad
How would file transfer be over 10 gigabit connection between 2 computers

>>56401830
It would be done before my dick could even get hard, hnnng

>>56401805

kek

>>56401796
Apple would be the first to create them.

>>56401748

>...can drop lanes as appropriate

please explain

File: lovelyonceagain.jpg (42KB, 430x430px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 430x430px

>>56401766

File: teslam40-front.jpg (22KB, 553x247px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 553x247px

>>56401678

maybe one of these fuckers - for machine learning? is bandwidth from host to gpu a bottleneck in machine learning?

>>56401678
PCIe 4 will mostly be for servers and HPC, halving the power consumption, and high performance storage. For games it wont make a difference, maybe if you saturate your vram on textures a swap could hit the PCIe hard but every engine now a day has some form of streaming to mitigate this to the point that even PCIe 2 is not even saturated. The only area with respect to game PCIe 4 will offer an advantage is that you will no longer required a bridge for SLI.

>>56401881
If the device for example has a full 16x electrical connection, but at the current moment only requires operation of say 1x lanes - it can disable the other 15 lanes so save on power.

This isn't actually new, PCI-e 2.0 (and onward) can do this, (iirc 1.1 can too) - but the extra bandwidth per lane of 4.0 means that more devices will be able to settle at 1x lane.

>>56401817
This is why you fall for the 64GB RAM meme. Set up your computer with a with a UPS and a ramdisk that saves to nonvolatile storage whenever the UPS kicks in. Cheap 34GB/s SSD.

>>56401953
Most people would be better off not doing that - even with a UPS can't stop bitflips.

Now if you're talking a real computer with *Registered* ECC dram, then you're determinately on the right track.
>Plus it probably won't be a wimpy 34GB/s then either, being that most every platform currently supported rdimm is quad channel interleaved.

File: nvlink-chart-final.jpg (28KB, 563x322px)

28KB, 563x322px

>>56401678

GP-GPU is the only workload i can think of (pic related)

gaming GPUs - no
network cards - no
SSDs - no

>>56401950

thx

>>56401983
How likely is that to happen anyway? Like if I store a random 1GB number in a file on a ramfs tonight and sha512sum it, how likely is it that one of the 8 billion bits will be flipped when I wake up and the hash will be changed?

>>56402160

more likely than you think. google some recent studies.

>>56402190
If it was that likely then all ram would be ecc.

>>56402190
The google study shows lower than I thought. 8% of dimms had a bit flip in a year. It doesn't seem to be random either. These errors are occuring in the same dimms over and over. If a DIMM experienced a bitflip last month, then it is 35-228 times more likely to have a bit flip this month.

I was expecting something like one bit flip per month per GB or something. I'm kind of sad that it isn't more random and more common. I wanted to use my ram as a particle detector.