Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT OC review
ASUS STRIX Radeon RX 5600 XT TOP review
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming OC review
Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 liquid cooler review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro licenses for under 10 USD
Team Group MP33 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
ADATA SE800 1TB Portable SSD review
Promo: Microsoft Office 2016 for $29.82
Corsair H100i RGB Pro XT liquid cooler review
Corsair K95 RGB PLATINUM XT review
AMD Linux driver reveals preliminary PCI-Express 4.0 support
While the need for PCI-Express 4.0 seems a bit redundant and far-fetched for any near future graphics card it now looks like it that the 7nm Vega20 that was announced on Computex, might be PCIe 4.0 compatible. Which has been an ongoing rumor ever since the beginning.
Earlier last year in October we already talked about Generation 4, the spec now is final. PCI-Express Gen 4.0 will offer 16 GT/s per PCI-Express lane which is double that of the 8 GT/s on the current PCI-Express Gen 3.0 specification. If you multiply 16 GT/s per lane bandwidth that translates into 1.97 GB/s for x1 devices, 7.87 GB/s for x4, 15.75 GB/s for x8, and 31.5 GB/s for x16 devices. The guys from Computerbase spotted an entry in the Linux AMD driver.
Contrary to say your SATA ports, PCI Express has moved well beyond the needs of any graphics cards. Currently, nearly every IO device routes data through PCIe to send signals back to the CPU and across the platform. It is expected to see rapid adoption of the new standard for storage and networking products (10 GBit/s links). NVMe SSDs using PCIe 3.0 x4, for example, reached the usable limit of the interface, ergo future NAND storage devices could benefit far better from this new standard. Meanwhile PCI-Express also already is in development at PCI-Sig, I added the numbers but that will take many years to see implemented.
| PCIe Version | Line Code | Transfer Rate | x1 Bandwidth | x4 | x8 | x16 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 8b/10b | 2.5 GT/s | 250 MB/s | 1 GB/s | 2 GB/s | 4 GB/s |
| 2.0 | 8b/10b | 5 GT/s | 500 MB/s | 2 GB/s | 4 GB/s | 8 GB/s |
| 3.0 | 128b/130b | 8 GT/s | 984.6 MB/s | 3.938 GB/s | 7.877 GB/s | 15.754 GB/s |
| 4.0 | 128b/130b | 16 GT/s | 1.969 GB/s | 7.877 GB/s | 15.754 GB/s | 31.508 GB/s |
| 5.0 | 128b/130b | 32 GT/s | 3.938 GB/s | 15.754 GB/s | 31.508 GB/s | 63.016 GB/s |
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5561355 Posted on: 06/29/2018 01:49 PM
For current-gen AMD GPUs, probably not. But, I imagine Volta GPUs demand more bandwidth than 3.0 @ x8 can offer.
EDIT:
As far as I'm concerned, the real benefit of higher-bandwidth PCIe lanes comes down to everything that uses fewer than x4 lanes (like M.2, x1 slots, Thunderbolt, etc). We need more bandwidth there; at this point, we could probably ditch x16 slots because I'm not sure we're really ever going to see hardware (of the same generation) take advantage of those ever again.
Are we even close to saturating PCIe 3.0 yet?
For current-gen AMD GPUs, probably not. But, I imagine Volta GPUs demand more bandwidth than 3.0 @ x8 can offer.
EDIT:
As far as I'm concerned, the real benefit of higher-bandwidth PCIe lanes comes down to everything that uses fewer than x4 lanes (like M.2, x1 slots, Thunderbolt, etc). We need more bandwidth there; at this point, we could probably ditch x16 slots because I'm not sure we're really ever going to see hardware (of the same generation) take advantage of those ever again.
Silva
Senior Member
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2013-06-04
Senior Member
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2013-06-04
#5561366 Posted on: 06/29/2018 02:19 PM
It's not only about saturating but efficiency too. Current SSD can already max PCIe3.0 4x for example.
Business needs this badly to improve performance. As for us consumers, CPUs have a limited number of lanes because they're expensive to make. So, if we need less lanes to power the same things, we get cheaper products or more feature rich products for the same price!
Currently some boards with 2 nvme slots have one running at 3.0 and the other at 2.0 through the chipset. An SSD connected through the chipset will have its performance degraded by half.
Are we even close to saturating PCIe 3.0 yet?
It's not only about saturating but efficiency too. Current SSD can already max PCIe3.0 4x for example.
Business needs this badly to improve performance. As for us consumers, CPUs have a limited number of lanes because they're expensive to make. So, if we need less lanes to power the same things, we get cheaper products or more feature rich products for the same price!
Currently some boards with 2 nvme slots have one running at 3.0 and the other at 2.0 through the chipset. An SSD connected through the chipset will have its performance degraded by half.
nosirrahx
Senior Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 2013-04-05
Senior Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 2013-04-05
#5561367 Posted on: 06/29/2018 02:21 PM
For current-gen AMD GPUs, probably not. But, I imagine Volta GPUs demand more bandwidth than 3.0 @ x8 can offer.
EDIT:
As far as I'm concerned, the real benefit of higher-bandwidth PCIe lanes comes down to everything that uses fewer than x4 lanes (like M.2, x1 slots, Thunderbolt, etc). We need more bandwidth there; at this point, we could probably ditch x16 slots because I'm not sure we're really ever going to see hardware (of the same generation) take advantage of those ever again.
Gen 4 X 4 lanes could handle just about anything we need. It could allow for standard 4 X risers in cases to more conveniently mount GFX cards.
For current-gen AMD GPUs, probably not. But, I imagine Volta GPUs demand more bandwidth than 3.0 @ x8 can offer.
EDIT:
As far as I'm concerned, the real benefit of higher-bandwidth PCIe lanes comes down to everything that uses fewer than x4 lanes (like M.2, x1 slots, Thunderbolt, etc). We need more bandwidth there; at this point, we could probably ditch x16 slots because I'm not sure we're really ever going to see hardware (of the same generation) take advantage of those ever again.
Gen 4 X 4 lanes could handle just about anything we need. It could allow for standard 4 X risers in cases to more conveniently mount GFX cards.
Evildead666
Senior Member
Posts: 1271
Joined: 2003-09-14
Senior Member
Posts: 1271
Joined: 2003-09-14
#5561369 Posted on: 06/29/2018 02:26 PM
Seeing as both the DMI interface on Intel, and the AMD equivalent, both use effectively PCIe 3.0 x4 interfaces, yes is the answer.
Having a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface between the CPU and the chipset will be a godsend to motherboard makers everywhere.
Are we even close to saturating PCIe 3.0 yet?
Seeing as both the DMI interface on Intel, and the AMD equivalent, both use effectively PCIe 3.0 x4 interfaces, yes is the answer.
Having a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface between the CPU and the chipset will be a godsend to motherboard makers everywhere.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9839
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 9839
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5561375 Posted on: 06/29/2018 02:34 PM
For current-gen AMD GPUs, probably not. But, I imagine Volta GPUs demand more bandwidth than 3.0 @ x8 can offer.
EDIT:
As far as I'm concerned, the real benefit of higher-bandwidth PCIe lanes comes down to everything that uses fewer than x4 lanes (like M.2, x1 slots, Thunderbolt, etc). We need more bandwidth there; at this point, we could probably ditch x16 slots because I'm not sure we're really ever going to see hardware (of the same generation) take advantage of those ever again.
PCIe can't come soon enough. On both sides of barricade southbridges are limited by PCIe lanes invested.
On AMD side it is pretty severe limitation. Some Disabled SATA slots in case you use M.2. And that M.2 only in PCIe 2.0 mode anyway. Sometimes disabled PCIe slot if you use M.2 slot.
ASUS has one middle of the road solution, where 2nd M.2 slot is not on SB, but shares lanes with Graphics. Therefore it runs in 3.0 x8 mode moment you occupy 2nd M.2 slot.
PCIe 4.0 instantly removes all those compromises. With PCIe 5.0, you could almost feel that it delivers sufficient bandwidth for 2 GPUs to share VRAM without crazy penalty. Or have PCIe 5.0 x2 to some external connector (Like USB 3.0) delivering same bandwidth as PCIe 2.0 x16.
Only thing I was disappointed with Ryzen was that AMD did not skip PCIe 3.0.
For current-gen AMD GPUs, probably not. But, I imagine Volta GPUs demand more bandwidth than 3.0 @ x8 can offer.
EDIT:
As far as I'm concerned, the real benefit of higher-bandwidth PCIe lanes comes down to everything that uses fewer than x4 lanes (like M.2, x1 slots, Thunderbolt, etc). We need more bandwidth there; at this point, we could probably ditch x16 slots because I'm not sure we're really ever going to see hardware (of the same generation) take advantage of those ever again.
PCIe can't come soon enough. On both sides of barricade southbridges are limited by PCIe lanes invested.
On AMD side it is pretty severe limitation. Some Disabled SATA slots in case you use M.2. And that M.2 only in PCIe 2.0 mode anyway. Sometimes disabled PCIe slot if you use M.2 slot.
ASUS has one middle of the road solution, where 2nd M.2 slot is not on SB, but shares lanes with Graphics. Therefore it runs in 3.0 x8 mode moment you occupy 2nd M.2 slot.
PCIe 4.0 instantly removes all those compromises. With PCIe 5.0, you could almost feel that it delivers sufficient bandwidth for 2 GPUs to share VRAM without crazy penalty. Or have PCIe 5.0 x2 to some external connector (Like USB 3.0) delivering same bandwidth as PCIe 2.0 x16.
Only thing I was disappointed with Ryzen was that AMD did not skip PCIe 3.0.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5561389 Posted on: 06/29/2018 03:15 PM
Oh whoops I meant x4 lanes or lower. Overall I agree, but I think there are some situations where a next-gen GPU for example will saturate x4 gen 4 lanes.
That problem is due to lack of lanes, not the generation. Regardless - I agree that is a bad limitation, especially considering there are only 4x SATA ports to begin with (I have 8-year-old motherboards with 6x SATA III ports, with no caveats).
I thought the primary M.2 slot was 3.0? Either way, it doesn't appear there are any major performance losses. However, benchmarks show that M.2 SSDs tend to perform a little faster on Intel. Part of me wonders is this is due to the higher clock speeds, though.
As for the disabled PCIe slot, that again comes down to number of lanes, not the generation.
I personally think 3.0 was perfectly fine - what disappointed me was how few lanes there were, and, how much it depends on PCIe 2.0. I was really hoping the 400 series chipsets would've addressed one of these issues.
But... my Ryzen rig is mini ITX and I don't have any M.2 drives, so, these problems never affected me.
Gen 4 X 4 lanes could handle just about anything we need. It could allow for standard 4 X risers in cases to more conveniently mount GFX cards.
Oh whoops I meant x4 lanes or lower. Overall I agree, but I think there are some situations where a next-gen GPU for example will saturate x4 gen 4 lanes.
On AMD side it is pretty severe limitation. Some Disabled SATA slots in case you use M.2.
That problem is due to lack of lanes, not the generation. Regardless - I agree that is a bad limitation, especially considering there are only 4x SATA ports to begin with (I have 8-year-old motherboards with 6x SATA III ports, with no caveats).
And that M.2 only in PCIe 2.0 mode anyway. Sometimes disabled PCIe slot if you use M.2 slot.
I thought the primary M.2 slot was 3.0? Either way, it doesn't appear there are any major performance losses. However, benchmarks show that M.2 SSDs tend to perform a little faster on Intel. Part of me wonders is this is due to the higher clock speeds, though.
As for the disabled PCIe slot, that again comes down to number of lanes, not the generation.
Only thing I was disappointed with Ryzen was that AMD did not skip PCIe 3.0.
I personally think 3.0 was perfectly fine - what disappointed me was how few lanes there were, and, how much it depends on PCIe 2.0. I was really hoping the 400 series chipsets would've addressed one of these issues.
But... my Ryzen rig is mini ITX and I don't have any M.2 drives, so, these problems never affected me.
-Tj-
Senior Member
Posts: 16505
Joined: 2012-05-18
Senior Member
Posts: 16505
Joined: 2012-05-18
#5561391 Posted on: 06/29/2018 03:21 PM
It's not only about saturating but efficiency too. Current SSD can already max PCIe3.0 4x for example.
Business needs this badly to improve performance. As for us consumers, CPUs have a limited number of lanes because they're expensive to make. So, if we need less lanes to power the same things, we get cheaper products or more feature rich products for the same price!
Currently some boards with 2 nvme slots have one running at 3.0 and the other at 2.0 through the chipset. An SSD connected through the chipset will have its performance degraded by half.
Install into a intel system with spectre and meltdown patch enabled, problem solved.
It's not only about saturating but efficiency too. Current SSD can already max PCIe3.0 4x for example.
Business needs this badly to improve performance. As for us consumers, CPUs have a limited number of lanes because they're expensive to make. So, if we need less lanes to power the same things, we get cheaper products or more feature rich products for the same price!
Currently some boards with 2 nvme slots have one running at 3.0 and the other at 2.0 through the chipset. An SSD connected through the chipset will have its performance degraded by half.
Install into a intel system with spectre and meltdown patch enabled, problem solved.
Ricepudding
Senior Member
Posts: 497
Joined: 2017-02-17
Senior Member
Posts: 497
Joined: 2017-02-17
#5561393 Posted on: 06/29/2018 03:34 PM
as others have said that part doesn't matter, i think only a few cards actually saturate PCIe 2.0 x16 and even then its within a small margin or error in many cases, its more about allowed PCIe to do more with m.2 and addon cards becoming more of a thing having your GPU only need PCIe x4 and still work 100% leaving the other 12 we used to need to be able to do other things is a dream.
Also means if you want to run sli you wont need to worry about bandwidth if you also want a m.2 and a sound card for example
Are we even close to saturating PCIe 3.0 yet?
as others have said that part doesn't matter, i think only a few cards actually saturate PCIe 2.0 x16 and even then its within a small margin or error in many cases, its more about allowed PCIe to do more with m.2 and addon cards becoming more of a thing having your GPU only need PCIe x4 and still work 100% leaving the other 12 we used to need to be able to do other things is a dream.
Also means if you want to run sli you wont need to worry about bandwidth if you also want a m.2 and a sound card for example
Dragonstongue
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 2017-09-19
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 2017-09-19
#5561422 Posted on: 06/29/2018 05:42 PM
as far as I know there has not been ANY GPU that saturates pci-e spec 2 @ x16 (they are perfectly content being x8 mode unless drivers or cruddy implementation from SLI/CF profile, bad mobo or whatever)
pci-e 3.0 has more "available" because of overhead reduction, so a x4 spec 3 is pretty smack on identical in real world performance to spec 2 x8, 3.0 x8 is better than spec 2 x16.
3+ GB/s is well beyond graphics cards needs UNLESS very very specific AI/machine learning/compute monsters that are well beyond "normal" ranges.
keep in mind, just because a gpu has say 1024bit memory running "effective 500+ GB/s this does NOT mean it is sending hundreds of gb per second over the pci-e bus (most of this is internalized usage) this is why for example ASICS can get away using such small amounts of actual data compared to the amount of "hashing" they are actually doing which can range in the hundreds or thousands of GB/s.
SSD/m.2/NVME and such on the other hand can be severely limited by having "only" 3 odd gb/s available for their usage especially if they drop from spec 3 x4 to spec 2 levels (motherboard limitation/implementation)
So, to say AMD/Nv GPU "claiming" they saturate any spec beyond spec 1 @ x8 is nonsense unless you are in a SLI/CF situation where that small "margin of error" becomes no longer imperceptible, but for a single card usages or for 99% of "gaming machines" there is no real current limitation for them to get the speed from spec 2x8 or spec 3x8, the "machine learning" ones such as Volta or whatever I honestly do NOT see spec 3x8 being any more a limitation than any other graphics card out there,
as far as I know there has not been ANY GPU that saturates pci-e spec 2 @ x16 (they are perfectly content being x8 mode unless drivers or cruddy implementation from SLI/CF profile, bad mobo or whatever)
pci-e 3.0 has more "available" because of overhead reduction, so a x4 spec 3 is pretty smack on identical in real world performance to spec 2 x8, 3.0 x8 is better than spec 2 x16.
3+ GB/s is well beyond graphics cards needs UNLESS very very specific AI/machine learning/compute monsters that are well beyond "normal" ranges.
keep in mind, just because a gpu has say 1024bit memory running "effective 500+ GB/s this does NOT mean it is sending hundreds of gb per second over the pci-e bus (most of this is internalized usage) this is why for example ASICS can get away using such small amounts of actual data compared to the amount of "hashing" they are actually doing which can range in the hundreds or thousands of GB/s.
SSD/m.2/NVME and such on the other hand can be severely limited by having "only" 3 odd gb/s available for their usage especially if they drop from spec 3 x4 to spec 2 levels (motherboard limitation/implementation)
So, to say AMD/Nv GPU "claiming" they saturate any spec beyond spec 1 @ x8 is nonsense unless you are in a SLI/CF situation where that small "margin of error" becomes no longer imperceptible, but for a single card usages or for 99% of "gaming machines" there is no real current limitation for them to get the speed from spec 2x8 or spec 3x8, the "machine learning" ones such as Volta or whatever I honestly do NOT see spec 3x8 being any more a limitation than any other graphics card out there,
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5561455 Posted on: 06/29/2018 07:39 PM
as far as I know there has not been ANY GPU that saturates pci-e spec 2 @ x16 (they are perfectly content being x8 mode unless drivers or cruddy implementation from SLI/CF profile, bad mobo or whatever)
pci-e 3.0 has more "available" because of overhead reduction, so a x4 spec 3 is pretty smack on identical in real world performance to spec 2 x8, 3.0 x8 is better than spec 2 x16.
Whether it's because of the overhead reduction or because of the additional bandwidth, there are some significant performance improvements in gen 3.0 vs 2.0. Techpowerup has an article proving this with a GTX 1080.
3+ GB/s is well beyond graphics cards needs UNLESS very very specific AI/machine learning/compute monsters that are well beyond "normal" ranges.
Not necessarily. Some GPUs have plenty of processing power but not enough VRAM, where you need a LOT of bandwidth to access system RAM.
As for non-gaming tasks, they might need a lot of bandwidth to fill up the VRAM, but otherwise in a lot of cases, the GPUs are just left churning data on their own, just sipping bandwidth as they go. But, I am aware this isn't true of all compute scenarios - some do demand chronic high bandwidth.
SSD/m.2/NVME and such on the other hand can be severely limited by having "only" 3 odd gb/s available for their usage especially if they drop from spec 3 x4 to spec 2 levels (motherboard limitation/implementation)
As stated earlier in this thread, it is devices like these (among others) which are very demanding of more bandwidth in fewer lanes. These are what push the demand of newer gens of PCIe.
So, to say AMD/Nv GPU "claiming" they saturate any spec beyond spec 1 @ x8 is nonsense unless you are in a SLI/CF situation where that small "margin of error" becomes no longer imperceptible, but for a single card usages or for 99% of "gaming machines" there is no real current limitation for them to get the speed from spec 2x8 or spec 3x8, the "machine learning" ones such as Volta or whatever I honestly do NOT see spec 3x8 being any more a limitation than any other graphics card out there,
I don't think either AMD or Nvidia claim anything about their products' bandwidth needs. But it's important to keep in mind why GPUs support all x16 lanes, despite the fact that most motherboards of their time don't need all of those lanes. The reason ultimately comes down to future-proofing. An overclocked 1080Ti might run perfectly fine on a 3.0 @ x8 slot, but will probably be bottlenecked on a 2.0 @ x8 slot. However, a 2.0 @ x16 slot should offer plenty of bandwidth.
It's also important to keep in mind that the inverse does NOT apply. Hypothetically speaking, let's say you have a PCIe 2.0 GPU that saturates more than x8 lanes. If you put that GPU in a gen 3.0 slot (regardless of lane count), you aren't going to get more bandwidth.
Remember, eGPUs are just starting to become a viable option. If you have a gen 4.0 or even 5.0 slot, you can operate a modestly powerful GPU with no major performance loss on x2 lanes, as long as you are running a display through the GPU itself. So, getting GPUs on newer gens of PCIe is important, not for x16 slots, but for everything else.
We're reaching a point where x16 slots might become totally obsolete.
as far as I know there has not been ANY GPU that saturates pci-e spec 2 @ x16 (they are perfectly content being x8 mode unless drivers or cruddy implementation from SLI/CF profile, bad mobo or whatever)
pci-e 3.0 has more "available" because of overhead reduction, so a x4 spec 3 is pretty smack on identical in real world performance to spec 2 x8, 3.0 x8 is better than spec 2 x16.
Whether it's because of the overhead reduction or because of the additional bandwidth, there are some significant performance improvements in gen 3.0 vs 2.0. Techpowerup has an article proving this with a GTX 1080.
3+ GB/s is well beyond graphics cards needs UNLESS very very specific AI/machine learning/compute monsters that are well beyond "normal" ranges.
Not necessarily. Some GPUs have plenty of processing power but not enough VRAM, where you need a LOT of bandwidth to access system RAM.
As for non-gaming tasks, they might need a lot of bandwidth to fill up the VRAM, but otherwise in a lot of cases, the GPUs are just left churning data on their own, just sipping bandwidth as they go. But, I am aware this isn't true of all compute scenarios - some do demand chronic high bandwidth.
SSD/m.2/NVME and such on the other hand can be severely limited by having "only" 3 odd gb/s available for their usage especially if they drop from spec 3 x4 to spec 2 levels (motherboard limitation/implementation)
As stated earlier in this thread, it is devices like these (among others) which are very demanding of more bandwidth in fewer lanes. These are what push the demand of newer gens of PCIe.
So, to say AMD/Nv GPU "claiming" they saturate any spec beyond spec 1 @ x8 is nonsense unless you are in a SLI/CF situation where that small "margin of error" becomes no longer imperceptible, but for a single card usages or for 99% of "gaming machines" there is no real current limitation for them to get the speed from spec 2x8 or spec 3x8, the "machine learning" ones such as Volta or whatever I honestly do NOT see spec 3x8 being any more a limitation than any other graphics card out there,
I don't think either AMD or Nvidia claim anything about their products' bandwidth needs. But it's important to keep in mind why GPUs support all x16 lanes, despite the fact that most motherboards of their time don't need all of those lanes. The reason ultimately comes down to future-proofing. An overclocked 1080Ti might run perfectly fine on a 3.0 @ x8 slot, but will probably be bottlenecked on a 2.0 @ x8 slot. However, a 2.0 @ x16 slot should offer plenty of bandwidth.
It's also important to keep in mind that the inverse does NOT apply. Hypothetically speaking, let's say you have a PCIe 2.0 GPU that saturates more than x8 lanes. If you put that GPU in a gen 3.0 slot (regardless of lane count), you aren't going to get more bandwidth.
Remember, eGPUs are just starting to become a viable option. If you have a gen 4.0 or even 5.0 slot, you can operate a modestly powerful GPU with no major performance loss on x2 lanes, as long as you are running a display through the GPU itself. So, getting GPUs on newer gens of PCIe is important, not for x16 slots, but for everything else.
We're reaching a point where x16 slots might become totally obsolete.
WareTernal
Senior Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 2013-09-27
Senior Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 2013-09-27
#5561463 Posted on: 06/29/2018 07:59 PM
TPU has shown a GTX 1080 on PCIe 1.1x8 is 13% slower than same card on PCIe 3.0x8, so I wouldn't say it's nonsense.
As was stated, the immediate benefit will be for PCIe storage devices.
A friend recently built a server, and ran into PCIe 3.0 limitations when it came to creating an array of U.2 drives.
The options are not so great right now. Multiple RAID cards is one option, but many servers don't even have one x16 electrical slot. VROC, PCIe switches and retimers is another, but it has issues too.
PCIe 4.0 boards are available, so I say bring on the cards!
to say AMD/Nv GPU "claiming" they saturate any spec beyond spec 1 @ x8 is nonsense
TPU has shown a GTX 1080 on PCIe 1.1x8 is 13% slower than same card on PCIe 3.0x8, so I wouldn't say it's nonsense.
As was stated, the immediate benefit will be for PCIe storage devices.
A friend recently built a server, and ran into PCIe 3.0 limitations when it came to creating an array of U.2 drives.
The options are not so great right now. Multiple RAID cards is one option, but many servers don't even have one x16 electrical slot. VROC, PCIe switches and retimers is another, but it has issues too.
PCIe 4.0 boards are available, so I say bring on the cards!
user1
Senior Member
Posts: 1458
Joined: 2016-01-29
Senior Member
Posts: 1458
Joined: 2016-01-29
#5561528 Posted on: 06/29/2018 11:49 PM
depends on the workload,
Support for pcie gen4 will mainly benefit compute type workloads,
graphics workloads, will not benefit very much, maybe 1-2% in most cases, maybe if you were pushing an 8k monitor and using more than 8gb of vram on an rx vega card, you might see a difference
Are we even close to saturating PCIe 3.0 yet?
depends on the workload,
Support for pcie gen4 will mainly benefit compute type workloads,
graphics workloads, will not benefit very much, maybe 1-2% in most cases, maybe if you were pushing an 8k monitor and using more than 8gb of vram on an rx vega card, you might see a difference
fOrTy_7
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Joined: 2005-06-18
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Joined: 2005-06-18
#5561627 Posted on: 06/30/2018 05:33 PM
I'm pretty sure modern PCs still use bellow architecture.
esktop_computer_bus_bandwidths.svg" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video-card#/media/File
esktop_computer_bus_bandwidths.svg
With RAM hitting easily 40GB/s and VRAM being about 10 times faster on high end cards, I can see how PCIe 3.0 x16 running at 16GB/s can be bottleneck for coping data from RAM to VRAM. This is a typical workload for computing applications designed to off-load work to GPU e.g.: using CUDA.
I'm not sure how modern game engines work, but I think they load textures first to RAM and then copy them to VRAM.
So at the very least it could reduce that operation cost / time.
VRAM speed even many times faster than RAM is still a limiting factor in computing operation for GPU,
so the sooner you can get data to/from there the better.
I'm pretty sure modern PCs still use bellow architecture.
esktop_computer_bus_bandwidths.svg" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video-card#/media/File
esktop_computer_bus_bandwidths.svgWith RAM hitting easily 40GB/s and VRAM being about 10 times faster on high end cards, I can see how PCIe 3.0 x16 running at 16GB/s can be bottleneck for coping data from RAM to VRAM. This is a typical workload for computing applications designed to off-load work to GPU e.g.: using CUDA.
I'm not sure how modern game engines work, but I think they load textures first to RAM and then copy them to VRAM.
So at the very least it could reduce that operation cost / time.
VRAM speed even many times faster than RAM is still a limiting factor in computing operation for GPU,
so the sooner you can get data to/from there the better.
RooiKreef
Senior Member
Posts: 385
Joined: 2016-06-08
Senior Member
Posts: 385
Joined: 2016-06-08
#5561628 Posted on: 06/30/2018 05:40 PM
I’m actually more interested in the storage speed advancements with PCIe 4.0. Double the current limit means even faster boot times and game loading times. I can’t wait for that though!
I’m actually more interested in the storage speed advancements with PCIe 4.0. Double the current limit means even faster boot times and game loading times. I can’t wait for that though!
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 5918
Joined: 2010-10-17
Are we even close to saturating PCIe 3.0 yet?