Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Need New Motherboards Before GPUs Collapse Under Their Own Gravity

erikmcclure.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 362 posts

Re: We Need New Motherboards Before GPUs Collapse Under Their Own Gravity

#331

Post by rocket_surgeron »

kuschku wrote: post #288
rocket_surgeron wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multi-gpu setups for gaming are dead. Multi-gpu setups for computation could have two SKUs one "motherboard" SKU and one connectorized SKU with the connector NOT being PCIe (after a transition). They already do multi-form-factor, PCIe and OAM for AMD, PCIe and SXM for Nvidia. Just drop PCIe, have a large motherboard SKU with a CPU slot and some OAM/SXM connectors in quantities up to what a wall socket can supply in t…

> what a wall socket can supply in terms of wattage (so, like 1 or 2 lol). So, you expect GPUs to take 1500W of power, each? (230V @ 16A)

No.

The motherboard and then 1 or 2 expansion sockets, for a total of 3.

3 x 450W for GPU (Nvidia says 4090 draws 450W-- I think they're lying and will wait for reviews to see the truth) and 500W for rest of system. Though that might be a bit low, the 11900K has been measured at what, 300W under load? And you'd need a budget for USB-C power, multiple NVMe, fans, and whatnot. Maybe the spec would accommodate high-core-count enterprise processors so 600W+ would be wiser.

Even in euroland 2KW, which is what a maxed out system would be at the wall socket, is a bit much. They don't even allow vacuum cleaners over 900W to be sold.

Re: We Need New Motherboards Before GPUs Collapse Under Their Own Gravity

#332

Post by tpmx »

naasking wrote: post #323
tpmx wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a ~140 mm tall desktop case under the monitor doesn't work that well with today's pretty large monitors - it would result in uncomfortable viewing angles. Add to that the often very wide monitor stands. And increased cooling noise because the case comes closer to your ears.

Mount the computer on the back of the screen.

You'd need counterweights in the front. :-)

Re: We Need New Motherboards Before GPUs Collapse Under Their Own Gravity

#333

Post by naasking »

tpmx wrote: post #332
naasking wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mount the computer on the back of the screen.

You'd need counterweights in the front. :-)

Or the case designed for mounting comes with extendable legs to support the weight. Or the monitor is designed on some kind of lever system that can be set to balance. Lots of options.

Re: We Need New Motherboards Before GPUs Collapse Under Their Own Gravity

#334

Post by [deleted] »

Taniwha wrote: post #231
smilespray wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I loved those cards. My daily driver was a fully stacked IIfx with a SuperMac card. I remember telling my friends my display was more than a thousand pixels (1152 or something) wide.

yup 1152x870 - essentially the largest number that is roughly a 4:3 aspect ratio and less than 1 megapixel (2^20 VRAM was so very expensive) (and meets a bunch of other limitations like video dot clocks, VRAM clock rates, must be a multiple of the width of the VRAM banks etc)

[deleted]

Re: We Need New Motherboards Before GPUs Collapse Under Their Own Gravity

#335

Post by imtringued »

rocket_surgeron wrote: post #194
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An important reason why you cannot have that is that the VME is a shared bus, while PCIe is a very high-frequency LVDS point-to-point system that you absolutely cannot implement on a shared bus.

VPX (VITA 46). Think of it like VMEexpress. I use PCIe over VPX every day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VPX Please, lord, somebody else outside of aerospace use it so more vendors get involved and availability and basically everything about the entire supply chain gets better through competition.

I always thought VPX is cool but then again there are no consumer products that use it so it is basically irrelevant.

Re: We Need New Motherboards Before GPUs Collapse Under Their Own Gravity

#336

Post by Arrath »

7speter wrote: post #183
sgtnoodle wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I vaguely recall Nvidia motherboards were junk in the late 2000's.

They made motherboard chipsets (nforce, iirc?), not motherboards, unless I missed something. I think by the late 2000’s, though, their discreet gpus on laptops were problematic because they got so hot they detached from the motherboards or fried themselves. In a lot of cases, these systems shipped with these gpus and intel processors with integrated igpus. This happened to a thinkpad t400 I had a while ago, the nvidi…

I recall my HP laptop with nvidia gpu getting painfully hot to the touch while raiding in WoW:TBC, probably could have cooked an egg on that sucker. It eventually gave up the ghost and I have to assume it was due to the heat.

Re: We Need New Motherboards Before GPUs Collapse Under Their Own Gravity

#337

Post by Arrath »

topspin wrote: post #104
dragontamer wrote: post #7

1. While I agree we're beginning to reach absurd proportions, lets really analyze the situation and think about it. 2. Are there any GPUs that actually have performed physical damage on a motherboard slot? 3. GPUs are already 2-wide by default, and some are 3-wide. 4-wide GPUs will have more support from the chassis. This seems like the simpler solution, especially since most people rarely have a 2nd add in card at a…

> 2. Are there any GPUs that actually have performed physical damage on a motherboard slot? Yes. I've seen both a heavy GPU and an HSM card damage a slot. One happened when a machine was shipped by a commercial shipper. The other happened when the machine was moved between residences. It doesn't occur to people that the mass of a card swinging around is a problem when the case is moved. The HSM one was remarkable in…

> One happened when a machine was shipped by a commercial shipper. The other happened when the machine was moved between residences. It doesn't occur to people that the mass of a card swinging around is a problem when the case is moved.

Huh. Good point. I'll be moving soon, and have kept the box my case came in as well as the foam inserts for either end of the case. I might just remove the GPU and put it back in its own box for the move, as well. Thanks for bringing that up.

Re: We Need New Motherboards Before GPUs Collapse Under Their Own Gravity

#338

Post by Arrath »

NavinF wrote: post #243
cyanydeez wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reality, there is no reason GPUs should be add-ons. Just star designing motherboards with integrated GPUs of sufficient size. Case closed.

Note this whole discussion is in the context of the 4090. If you're an enthusiast, soldering the GPU to the mobo forces you to spend $200-$700 more every time you upgrade your GPU because you also have to buy a new mobo and possibly a new CPU if the socket changed. The GPU is also one of the easiest components to swap today. That's not something I want to give up unless I see performance improvements. Cooling doesn't…

Having had a few GPUs go bad on me over the years, I would hate to have to disassemble the entire thing to extricate the mobo/gpu combo for RMA'ing, rather than just removing the GPU and sending it off.

Re: We Need New Motherboards Before GPUs Collapse Under Their Own Gravity

#340

Post by hlandau »

The retention mechanism in the PCIe spec he's quoting here isn't metal; it's literally just an extra piece of plastic on the PCIe slot. I've used motherboards with them, they do exist. You have to move it out of the way if you want to remove the card. I don't know that it really adds much mechanically though, it's just a retention mechanism. Since it's part of the PCIe slot, any load it bears is pulling on the same thing: the motherboard. Image: https://www.vortez.net/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=...

It does feel like GPUs are getting rather ridiculous and pushing the limits. PCIe SIG seems to keep having to specify editions of the PCIe add-in-card electromechanical spec authorising higher power draws, and sometimes it seems like these limits imposed by the standard are just ignored.

Post reply on HN