If they need 512 they can probably do it without issue. What you're saying is that you would have liked to make cards with more ram, the bus width is irrelevant, it gets sized as needed, not the other way around. On 4 Jun 2015 5:33 am, "Tim Leydecker" <bauero...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > Am 03.06.2015 um 08:32 schrieb Raffaele Fragapane: > > Huh? > The width is whatever is required for the controllers to address the RAM. > If they have 12GB over 6 32bit controllers as that manufacturing specs max > why would they have more than 384? > > > I was hoping for nVidia to bring the bus width up to 512bit, making > 2,4,8,16,32,64 GB Ram likely because that > would go well together with such a bus width (or even just a 256bit width > bus). > > Of course, if all you have is 384bit, 12 GB is what is convenient to > connect, not 16GB (as in AMD´s current 512bit bus cards) > > My point. > > Looking at previous release/development cycles of nVidia, one could now > expect to see a Titan Z Black edition coming > to close off the 9xx series, with some sort of shrunk production process, > more cores or a little bit of higher clocking > but unlikely to have a wider bus to adress video RAM in the 16GB range. > > Such a thing will probably not come before the next generation of cards, > in pseudo naming, the 10xx series. > > Not before next year. > > This gives AMD 1 year to try and get customers looking for lot´s of video > ram for their editing, comp, etc. > > tim > > > > > > > > > > > Also, what the architecture and the proposed manufacturing guidelines > allow in terms of addressing width isn't the same as what's out in the > current card of the month. > > The 980 is the same in most regards but only has 256bit in example > because al it needs to address is 8GB. > > If they need to address more It's very likely the width can be pushed a > good deal further. > > The bottleneck isn't currently measured in bus width, the throughput is > an issue, and it's got little to do with the width of addressing stacks, > and it's why things like NVLink and new PCI bus specs and so on are being > looked into. > > There are a lot other design issues that are being worked on by more > than just a company, the addressing width across the bus isn't particularly > symptomatic of any of those AFAIK. > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Tim Leydecker <bauero...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> The 980ti (starting at EUR 735,-) is a good opportunity compared to the >> gtx980 (starting at EUR 500,-) >> but it is annoying to know that Video-RAM will soon become a bottleneck >> because more and more >> applications start to utilize GPU performance to their benefit, either >> when caching out like in Nuke for >> huge environment images or a GPU renderer like Redshift3D having to >> optimize, e.g. limit it´s >> cache sizes to fit into a smaller than desireable meomory footprint. >> >> All that on top of what a 4k display would demand for it´s share of >> available video memory to start with. >> >> I think Nvidia missed an opportunity there, not just for quadro cards. >> They are pulling an Intel in terms of price tags but they didn´t make >> sure their base is safe for the future. >> >> I had hoped for a wider than 384bit bus, e.g. something more like a >> 512bit bandwidth which would >> have made power of two steps in video ram more likely, e.g. cards with >> 4GB, 8GB, 12GB, 16GB, etc. >> >> To me, it seems the gtx9xx bus width comes directly from the gtx7xx >> range, which was already starting >> to show limits in buswidth back then. >> >> All that said and taking tax laws and such for wrting off hardware into >> account, I´d probably have to go >> with a Titan, using it 2-3 years and finding myself wanting more video >> ram soon anyway... >> >> Cheers, >> >> tim >> > >
