why the video cards do not have expansion slots as before?
Why the video cards do not have expansion slots as before?
Planned obsolescence.
Current graphics cards (I guess that's what you're trying to say, because video cards are something utterly different and that in your pic is not a video card) are pretty damn complex.
And it's just cheaper for the manufacturer.
Plus,
too expensive to solder all those plastic RAM slots and configure the logic to handle various combos of RAM sticks. cheaper to solder RAM chips straight onto the board and ship it as is. I mean for one card it means nothing, but it's a lot of materials and labor for the robots for 30 or 40 thousand cards.
also, since there hasn't been a push for addable VRAM sticks, there's not really a standard as you have for DDR3 or DDR4 sticks. (are they at GDDR5 or whatever it is now?)
Added expense which the board partners do not care for.
Specs of the card would vary depending on what memory you used which would make them harder to advertise.
There's no memory module form factor that would work well for such low clearance as between possibly two or more PCI/PCIe cards
>not soldering your PC components yourself
Making a system modular is a lot more expensive than simply making the system. At some point the added cost surpasses any possible benefit.
I'm surprised companies haven't combined RAM, CPU and mobos yet.
...
That is beautiful
mmmmm neat!
Clint...
Memory prices. Shit used to be way expensive back in the day, they would sell the base card at an affordable price and leave it up to the user as to whether they wanted to spend twice the cost of the card again to fill it with VRAM
Discrete RAM chips are still a very cost effective solution but a lot of modern CPUs do contain most of the motherboard chipset these days. What's left outside of the CPU/SoC is added by the mobo manufacturer so they can have more features to advertise. Those extra chips likely wont ever go away as long as mobo manufacturers stick around.
>le reddit tech illiterate hipster meme
You're on Sup Forums, act like it.
what the fuck are you going to do with more than 8 gigs of vram?
>le
wrong.
in order for a user to install the memory with no tools it would have to be so big that any performance gains would be lost by the fact that you'd have to send it through a bus that wasn't dense enough
Wrong.
It's just not worth it for the companies. They wouldn't profit as much.
Your example is only hard right if you specifically talk about memory that's on chip (not silicon, just chip).
There are many reasons but from what pops to mind:
- sockets inherently cause timing issues for those 2+ ghz memory chips
- gpus are quite married to the memory configuration they use and often require a different chip to use different chips
- in the olden days more VRAM unlocked more resolutions if you had such need. These days even garbage tier $10 card has more frame buffer then needed for triple buffered 4k display with 10 bit color ( which is ~94MB, by the way ).
- there would be cooling problems for extensible cards with 200W TDP and requirement to handle several memory configs.
Radeon Pro SSG sort of counts, has M.2 SSD slots you can attach storage and cache your shit on the card itself
Those traces done by hand always look awesome.
Video memory isn't as significant anymore like it used to be when these cards were ubiquitous. 640x480 was cramped and even the most basic of use cases could benefit from the increased color depth and higher resolutions you could obtain with an upgrade from 512K-1MB. It was also far more expensive, so it made sense to simply offer it as an upgrade rather than complicating the manufacturing process with multiple memory configurations or pricing your product out of the entry-level with a full memory complement that many users won't care for without a high-resolution 1280x1024/1600x1200 display to benefit from it with.
Nowadays there's just no point in it. We surpassed the point where video memory configurations made a significant difference in resolution/color depth support almost 20 years ago and surface-mounted components are generally more reliable than their socketed counterparts that have an additional point of failure between them and the rest of the assembly. The bottleneck is all in the chipset now in an era where even the lowest-end cards sport hundreds of megabytes to gigabytes of onboard memory or can draw from system memory. Throwing 8 gigabytes of video memory into your old HD 5450 isn't going to make it any better at handling heavy GPGPU work or drawing complex textured 3D scenes at high resolutions.