A resourceful user was able to turn the tiny 3D cache memory built by AMD in its latest consumer processors into a secondary, albeit puny storage unit....
If that’s the same article I’ve read a few days back, it also says that’s not entirely true, because maximum speed of that cache is 2 TB/s (you wrote 0.182 TB/s). I think it’s limited by the size, similarly to when you can’t achieve max speed during running due to insufficient road length. Or maybe it’s limited by the sampling rate.
it’s in this article as well "… AMD’s 3D V-Cache can be even faster when used for its intended purpose. First-generation 3D V-Cache is good enough for a 2 TB/s peak throughput, AMD states, while data bandwidth is even higher (2.5 TB/s) on the second-generation variant of the technology…
even losing 90% of it’s peak throughput is still good for .182TB/s and while the peak numbers came up using a 16/32MB dataset on a 96 MB drive , the tech was still able to pull a READ of 111k MB/sec and WRITE of 50k using an 8GB dataset on the same 96MB partition - the author called the results ’ puzzling ’
(answered twice because reddit automod removed first post for linking to twitter where the results were posted. if you want to see it, twit handle is GPUsAreMagic)
If that’s the same article I’ve read a few days back, it also says that’s not entirely true, because maximum speed of that cache is 2 TB/s (you wrote 0.182 TB/s). I think it’s limited by the size, similarly to when you can’t achieve max speed during running due to insufficient road length. Or maybe it’s limited by the sampling rate.
it’s in this article as well "… AMD’s 3D V-Cache can be even faster when used for its intended purpose. First-generation 3D V-Cache is good enough for a 2 TB/s peak throughput, AMD states, while data bandwidth is even higher (2.5 TB/s) on the second-generation variant of the technology…
even losing 90% of it’s peak throughput is still good for .182TB/s and while the peak numbers came up using a 16/32MB dataset on a 96 MB drive , the tech was still able to pull a READ of 111k MB/sec and WRITE of 50k using an 8GB dataset on the same 96MB partition - the author called the results ’ puzzling ’
(answered twice because reddit automod removed first post for linking to twitter where the results were posted. if you want to see it, twit handle is GPUsAreMagic)