And they cost easily 3x as much...
They cost 3x as much as what? Some fantasy GPU chip that doesn't even exist in the real world?
It's about cost/performance. 3d cards (and even CPUs) are sorely under-utilized as is.
You're preaching to me
about cost/performance? Are you really that
And no, 3D cards are not under utilized in the current generation. Not unless you run them at low (1024x768 or under) resolutions or don't take advantage of all the features of the cards/games. If you bother to look at current benchmarks you'll see that modern games (Oblivion, FEAR, etc) are, in fact, GPU limited. A few months ago this wasn't true, but developers ramped up the graphics quality and features. The next gen cards will come out and we'll go back to a surplus of power, and then developers will ramp it up again.
As for CPUs -- yes, they've been under utilized in games
for years. But I'd kill for more CPU power on my work desktop. And on our servers. But CPUs are largely under-utilized because they're waiting on main memory for data. And yet you want to further slow main memory by increasing contention for it as a resource. Yeah... that's smart. Because we've all seen the absolutely stunning performance numbers given by integrated video chipsets with no memory in comparison to identical or nearly identical GPUs with dedicated memory.
Instead you make vague references about people not doing their research and post nothing of substance yourself.
You didn't do your research. And you want substance? Fine.
Caches do not help with lack of bandwidth -- they help for latency issues. In fact, caches actually harm you if you're starved for transfer rates (aka bandwidth) since they slow requests for data during a cache miss. Which is pretty much all you're going to havve when you're streaming huge amounts of data in and out of the core. Caches are not free. Of course, if you'd ever taken any computer architecture courses you'd know that.
That's why GPUs haven't bothered with caches and have gone for more memory with higher transfer rates. Because caches do absolutlely nothing for them. Unless you consider the onboard memory to be one huge cache (which it effectively is).
But I'm sure you already knew all of this, given how wonderfully insightful and courteous your comments have been.