- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 2,987 (0.78/day)
| Processor | AMD Ryzen 9 5900X ||| Intel Core i7-3930K |
|---|---|
| Motherboard | ASUS ProArt B550-CREATOR ||| Asus P9X79 WS |
| Cooling | Noctua NH-U14S ||| Be Quiet Pure Rock |
| Memory | Crucial 2 x 16 GB 3200 MHz ||| Corsair 8 x 8 GB 1333 MHz |
| Video Card(s) | MSI GTX 1060 3GB ||| MSI GTX 680 4GB |
| Storage | Samsung 970 PRO 512 GB + 1 TB ||| Intel 545s 512 GB + 256 GB |
| Display(s) | Asus ROG Swift PG278QR 27" ||| Eizo EV2416W 24" |
| Case | Fractal Design Define 7 XL x 2 |
| Audio Device(s) | Cambridge Audio DacMagic Plus |
| Power Supply | Seasonic Focus PX-850 x 2 |
| Mouse | Razer Abyssus |
| Keyboard | CM Storm QuickFire XT |
| Software | Ubuntu |
No memory controller works the way you describes.
For starters, the memory controllers on GPUs have all power of 2 address space as I've said a number of times already, how hard is this to understand?
But for the hypothetical scenario where 3 out of 4 memory slots i occupied, the memory controller will never check if a memory address is inside the range on read/write, that would be too costly anyway. The whole "problem" is solved on allocation of memory (which is costly anyway, and done very rarely compared to read/write), and the only thing to check then is whether the memory address is above the maximum size, so the problem you describes doesn't exist.
Just to illustrate how wrong you are, I checked two of the machines I'm running here;
i7-3930K, 46-bit controller, 65536 GB (64 TB) theoretical physical address space, but the CPU is "limited" to 64 GB.
i5-4690K, 39-bit controller, 512 GB theoretical physical address space, but the CPU is "limited" to 32 GB.
(This is fetched directly from the CPU's cpuid instruction, so it's what the OS sees and is guaranteed to be correct)
Number of bits of what? Data bus? Memory bus? Register width?
If you look at GPU architectures you'll see that most of then don't have a core count which adds up to a power of 2, like 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, etc. Just scroll through here and here, that power of 2 is more the exception than the rule.
The term "a perfect power of 2 chip" doesn't make any sense.
The GTX 970 "issue" was that two memory chips shared one 32-bit controller, while the others didn't, creating an address space where some of it was slower without the allocator taking this into account. Power of 2 had absolutely nothing to do with it.
If GTX 1080 Ti were to do the same thing it would have to do 12 memory chips on 11 controllers, which we know it doesn't, so we know it can't happen. If you still think it's a problem, then you're having a problem understanding how processors and memory work.
Your avatar is cool though.Oh and you asked for it - check my sig!
