8 ms·
I think the implication is they focussed on the huge efficiency gains, and didn't focus on the small ones?
by elliottkember 3mo ago
I think the implication is they focussed on the huge efficiency gains, and didn't focus on the small ones?
- rob74 3mo agoAt least for Nvidia and AMD desktop GPUs/cards, the priorities are: #1 (by far) "can it play [hot game of the moment] in 4K?" #2 (maybe) "is the fan noisy in desktop mode?" #3 (for nerds) "can I run LLMs on it?" I don't think top efficiency in desktop mode is on anyone's list, and even if it were, it would be hard to come up with a design that uses hundreds of watts when running top-tier games or LLMs, but also uses as little as possible when idle?
- arghwhat 3mo agoNo, rather that they focused on peak performance, i.e., "churn out the most raw throughput at 400W+", rather than "get as close as possible to 0W when idle or in common uses". Very different metrics - the former is about optimizing your architecture for pushing the most operations, the latter is about being able to power as many things off as possible.