I'll wait until 2025 to see if the Intel's good ones are good. I'll be able to get a nvidia 3060 at retail price then, maybe. hopefuly.,(reply>), a lot of gpus.......<br><br><br><br><br>just for miners,(reply>), @Jacob Leeson Man first of all that was rhetorical question.If I know about optronics I know what challenges are,and also hear about newcomers - actual main challenge for them,is that for some small but powerful chip,they need damn laser,not like pointer or one that used for CDs,but megawatt laser unit.And no they not just multiply performance by number of wavelength - that's not like "multi-threading",they don't have separate groups of transistors,they literally perform in same space at the same time,therefore they theoretically can interconnect those "light threads",which absolutely changes computing potential.But if I recall correctly,their claim was that they theoretically could achieve 6 or 8 wavelength max. Diamonds expensive? You talking about some BS jewellery crap,"from De Beers-like <a href=""http://monopolies.google/"">monopolies.Google</a> synthetic diamonds","and compare their prices to CPU grade <a href=""http://silicon.like/"">silicon.Like</a> most cost of new tech nodes doesn't even comes from silicon materials",it's mostly about etching and especially EUV. It doesn't matter GPU or CPU - they use same nodes,same silicon,same everything.Increased cache brings only 20%? It brings it without ANY changes to program code and algorithm. You just said games need faster memory - cache is FASTEST memory. AMD  already uses "Infinity Cache" in order to compensate their use of cheaper GDDR6 compared to Nvidia's GDDR6X. What is even your point - "fastest memory we currently have" - obviously they try to use up to date technologies. We going to have GDDR7,8,9...this doesn't matter it's obvious information. Low power cores - you don't have any clue how they can be used,and that's not your fault - it's Intel who supposed to make their product useful.What they decided to do is add cheap multi core performance,it has nothing to do with "efficiency",except efficiently using die space.But they didn't get rid of cursed AVX 512!.. Listen,before you would be able to learn in how many ways you are wrong - AMD will launch CPUs with 3D VCache, GPUs with 3D VChahce,with MCM chiplets,with time those chiplets  would also get separate architectures on same cards(tensor,RT,etc. modules). But all of this is baby steps compared to real advancements - 400 GHz transistors,3D architectures,highly heat-conductive materials that easy to cool. Nature of optronics isn't fit for graphical workloads?Are you blind? Like that's actually related question - do you able to see with your eyes? Like light and colors? That's optics - all what you see is light.It's nature of light to transfer "graphical data". Come on man,just start thinking by yourself,and not by some quotes of others.,(reply>), @Steelmor A company already released a optical computer about 20 times faster than a nivida a100 with 1/10th the power consumption. Plus they are only using 1 wave length of light. If they use a different wavelength they can reuse the same processor at the same time. So 64 wave lengths gives 64 times the performance. But it is not suitable as a gpu. Do to the nature of how optical computing works they are not good at those types of workloads. They essentially do math and that is all they can do. But even more basic than what a gpu can do. They are only really useful for algorithmic work so they are only being targeted towards things like search engines and data science research. No good for gaming. Same thing with quantum computing except it is even worse. Etching on diamonds is for storage. And while they can have super high storage density it is much slower than even a floppy disk. Regardless even if it was fast it doesn’t really matter. Storage capacity isn’t a big issue for gamers. Even with 20 triple a games you’ll only use like 1.5 terabytes which isnt that expensive anymore. And if you think that diamond one of the most expensive materials will bring the storage prices down you are crazy. Storage speed kinda matters now with direct storage but if you have enough ram it doesn’t make a difference,. Different types of cores is actually a downside again. Low power cores save power consumption but lower performance. Again power consumption not really something that matters for gaming. Most would prefer computing power over efficiency. Increasing cache speed also increases cost. No new technology. Fast chance has been available for a long time it just is only being used now as a last resort. It is super expensive. And faster cache only increases performance by that much in some applications it is not 20 percent across the board. Also this discussion is about GPU’s you keep bringing it back to cpus. GPU’s already use gddr6 and hbm which is the fastest memory we currently have. High level cache is a bit faster than hbm ram but not much and GPU’s already have loads of it.,(reply>), @Jacob Leeson Again,your first comment was about that CPU are hitting their limits - I'm just bringing fact that CPUs barely left 2d plane.And again - no,it's not that expensive and 20% faster from just increased cache is HUGE uplift in performance. You can't have any clue about heat dissipation in those chips since they not released yet.But what is known - is that silicon thickness is supposed to be same compered to 1 layer,because they grind it down.Amount of possibilities to advance CPUs is so tremendously huge,that it feels like no one even tried to do something innovative. Like all we had - getting multi-threads,multicore,chiplets,different types of cores,and now layer stacking - that's all big things that happened to CPUs in last 20 years.Where is optronics?Magnonics? Transistor on diamonds? We barely scratching the surface.,(reply>), @Steelmor yes I understand the technology. I’m just saying in its current state it is shitty and expensive and not much faster than just using multiple non 3D stacked chips. Also heat dissipation with them is bad so again that means sacrificing clock speed in order to fit in more transistors.