So it's basically a gimmick for people like me (target: 4K60 with best IQ possible).
I mean it's what makes it possible for these cards with relatively insufficient memory bandwidth to do what they do. Otherwise we'd need HBM's bus width and G6X's throughput to start to get even at this point.
Cache size is super important on many architectures, and this isn't just for GPUs - for example, Core 2's entire segmentation was strictly on its L2 cache size, and two identically clocked CPUs with the same core count would exhibit major performance differences, take the E8400 and the E7600, they're both 3 GHz CPUs, difference being the 8400 has 6 MB and a 333 FSB and the 7600 has 3 MB and a 266 FSB (with a higher multiplier to match), the 8400 will walk on the 7600. Pentium at the time further reduced cache to 2 MB and Celeron at just 1 MB. On AMD's side, the Athlon II, for example, was just a Phenom II with the L3 entirely disabled - it's always been a significant step up in performance, but one that is costly in die area, heavily affects thermals and is particularly sensitive to fabrication imperfections so it's always been a very expensive addition to any processor design.
almost true.
however, i've usually found pre-skylake intels to be rather dragged down by their (lack of) igp performance these days. some of them even struggle to playback 1080p.
now, on an actual desktop you could just jam in a 1030 or something, but on a mac mini that's unfortunately not possible
Just saw this and I'd have to say this vintage Mac mini doesn't exactly qualify for that (the idea behind it was to get something that could run Snow Leopard) but... I expect people to keep their M1 Minis for example for a very long time. There's just little point in an upgrade if these things can play 4K video, browse the internet, and even run light games nowadays, really.
Seems the only reason we need ever faster machines is to keep up with gaming demand, unless you're doing actual work with your PC.
