this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
75 points (94.1% liked)

PC Gaming

8573 readers
509 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Poutinetown@lemmy.ca 34 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Nice, now we just need 80 CPUs and we won't need a GPU anymore!

[–] TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Perfect! We'd have pretty low utilization on those 80 CPUs, though -- if we made them smaller, the power draw would be lower and it would be cheaper. We could then get away with adding more CPUs. It would then make sense to put the array of simple CPUs on its own card, dedicated to graphics processing... wait a minute.

[–] Poutinetown@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago

Maybe we could use a single huge heatsink to cool it off! we could even use 3 fans instead of 1!

[–] phx@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago

Not good for real-time rendering, but it still has potential for rendering 3D still scenes or frames of a video, or a small studio might have those 80 CPU's in a render-farm and not need to worry about supply-issues for GPU'S