When will we see 512MB

T

tinysmall

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
115
I would hardly call the 'next generation' of cards 'next generation' since the amount of on board memory remains the same as it has been for the past 2 or 3 generations. Stuck at 256. I think for games like D3 or HL2 it would benefit to have 512MB of on board video ram. Will cards with that amount of memory be shipped and ready to buy by August?
 
i think 256 is still efficent for now, but next year i would love to have a 512mb card :)
i doubt we will see them for a while but nvidia did say they would come this summer at their nv40 party. (maybe i am mistaken)
512.jpg
 
high memory cards are nothing new to the workstation field...i mean, 3 years ago, i could look at sgi's offerings, 3dlabs, et al. and see 512mb cards all over...

it's the cosumer space that really hasn't needed the extra texture space until now.

cheers,

dave
 
tinysmall said:
I would hardly call the 'next generation' of cards 'next generation' since the amount of on board memory remains the same as it has been for the past 2 or 3 generations. Stuck at 256. I think for games like D3 or HL2 it would benefit to have 512MB of on board video ram. Will cards with that amount of memory be shipped and ready to buy by August?
Click to expand...


you make it sound like the amount of memory on most video cards is a bottleneck or something.
 
Bad_Boy said:
i think 256 is still efficent for now, but next year i would love to have a 512mb card :)
Click to expand...

I think 256 should be sufficient for the next year or so atleast. Reports mention that the Doom]|[ and HL2 engines will utilize up to around 128MB of memory for textures if available. My guess is that the next unreal engine may be the first to really take advantage of memory beyond 256 and that's 2 years off.

For folks that buy a new card every 2-3 years, a 512 card may be the right answer next year as future proofing goes (if there is such a thing). However, I wouldn't give a 512 card a second look anytime soon unless the premium is small (and it wont be) and until a game based benchmark shows an advantage for having 512, for those who upgrade once a year or more often.

On a side note... Bad Boy, here's a triad shout out to ya... Do you LAN anywhere around here?
 
Bad_Boy said:
i think we are talking about 512mb gaming cards. :p
Click to expand...


A video card is a video card except that some video cards are built differently than others.


I'm going to go take some prescription drugs right now because this sentence is making my blood boil:
Join Date: Jan 2003

When will we see 512MB
I would hardly call the 'next generation' of cards 'next generation' since the amount of on board memory remains the same as it has been for the past 2 or 3 generations.
Click to expand...

YOu know there is about 5 dozen other factors that determine a cards performance other than the memory on it and you want to sit and bitch about how the new high end video cards don't have 512 memory on them ?

I guess people see the amount of memory on video cards TOO MUCH in the specs. Its got to be like clockspeed or something where those easy to read numbers are the first thing a dealer spits out at you.
 
Its hardly important, and i honestly feel bad for someone who would get a 512 card, as they would be horribly overpaying for nothing. I believe Doom 3's max usage is 96mb for textures. Atleast it was around 2 years ago i believe.
 
RAutrey said:
On a side note... Bad Boy, here's a triad shout out to ya... Do you LAN anywhere around here?
Click to expand...

yeah im probally gonna go to a lan tommorrow at 6pm. 24 hour lan. its 15 dollars at the door. ill pm you a link
 
Yeah, how can ATI and NVidia call these new cards "next-generation" They only have new features, better precision (in NVidia's case), double (or more than double) the pipelines, and in most cases, Twice the Performance.

That's not next generation at all, it needs more ram. ;)
 
Cali3350 said:
Its hardly important, and i honestly feel bad for someone who would get a 512 card, as they would be horribly overpaying for nothing. I believe Doom 3's max usage is 96mb for textures. Atleast it was around 2 years ago i believe.
Click to expand...
futureproofing. i dont buy cards every 6-12 months. simply because i dont have the money. so if somebody buys a 512mb card that is built for gaming next year (not a professional card thats built for CAD, animation, and rendering), i say go for it.
 
Increasing the amount of RAM from 256MB to 512MB will drastically increase the price of video cards. Seeing the current price of the X800s and 6800s I doubt that such a product would sell very well ($700?).
 
Bad_Boy said:
futureproofing. i dont buy cards every 6-12 months. simply because i dont have the money. so if somebody buys a 512mb card that is built for gaming next year (not a professional card thats built for CAD, animation, and rendering), i say go for it.
Click to expand...


Why would you pay just for extra ram ? Because thats all you would be paying for, geez at this point very few games would need ANYTHING like 512 mb of memory. I think that half the people at hardforum would tell you that most games don't even take advantage of 256 megs of memory.


*sigh* wintel users like you are bad for my health
 
Mushroom Prince said:
Why would you pay just for extra ram ? Because thats all you would be paying for, geez at this point very few games would need ANYTHING like 512 mb of memory. I think that half the people at hardforum would tell you that most games don't even take advantage of 256 megs of memory.


*sigh* wintel users like you are bad for my health
Click to expand...

i guess you didnt even attempt to read what i said.

here are some key words. futureproofing, next year, i think 256 is still efficent for now.

*sigh* flamers like you, give forums cancer. :rolleyes:
 
Bad_Boy said:
i guess you didnt even attempt to read what i said.

here are some key words. futureproofing, next year, i think 256 is still efficent for now.

*sigh* flamers like you, give forums cancer. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


you have no credibility because your a wintel user


but thats just me
:cool:
 
If there was a 512MB version of the GeForce 6800 Ultra available now, I'd buy it. Not saying I'd NEED it. But I'd buy it.

I'm still gaming on my 64MB GeForce 4 Ti4200 until I get my new card.
 
The 6800 supports up to 2GB of memory, the only issue is that it would cost like $2000+ for the card.
 
kcthebrewer said:
The 6800 supports up to 2GB of memory, the only issue is that it would cost like $2000+ for the card.
Click to expand...


Because ram is a commodity and it is FUCKING EXPENSIVE


but I guess wintel users doesn't understand that
 
I want a video card where i can upgrade the memory modules!! I wanna be able to slap a 32-1000mb module on that card!!! and i want the memory to be just as fast as gddr3, am i dreaming?
 
the funny thing is that most of us just bought a new video card within the past 6 months, and we are already excited for what is comming out next (i buy a new video card every generation), wil we ever be happy?
 
Bad_Boy said:
i guess you didnt even attempt to read what i said.

here are some key words. futureproofing, next year, i think 256 is still efficent for now.

*sigh* flamers like you, give forums cancer. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

512MB won't provide futureproofing of any kind because current GPU's are going to be hugely out of date before any game requires 512MB.

Next year 256MB will still be plenty of RAM... I have a 2 year old 9700 with 128mb (which was alot at the time) of RAM and there is no game out today that I can't play at 1280x1024 on it with medium settings. 2 years from now the current cards with 256MB of RAM should still let you play every game that comes out at atleast 1280x1024, including Unreal 3.

Furthermore, RAM prices don't really decrease, the RAM just gets faster, so top end RAM stays at the same price. Moving to 512MB is going to drastically increase the price of cards unless they don't use the fastest RAM available. So then the question becomes which is more important, texture memory, RAM speed, or Price? As long as texture compression technology continues to improve more RAM isn't needed all that badly and speed and price will continue to be the most important points. Once we reach the reasonable limits of texture compression then we MAY be forced to increase available RAM, however we may not....

What people seem to forget is that the reason RAM needs increased so fast over the last 7 years is because we have, until recently, been playing catchup. In the past we needed an ever increasing amount of texture memory, even with compression, to handle everything that is on screen at once and make it all look good. That's why the amount of memory was increased on cards as soon as prices would allow. There was just no way to make 128x128 textures look good so enough memory needed to be available to use 256x256 textures, then enough for 512x512, 1024x1024 etc... However each further step up provides less relative benefit from the previous texture size. Today we are almost using as large of textures as we reasonably need to for modern computer resolutions. What is now going to drive the need for more memory is the increase in the shear numbers of individual textures that are going to start being used, and the increased use of other memory using stuff like normal maps. These and other things will increase memory need over time, but it isn't nearly as drastic an increase as we used to experience before we got up to current texture resolutions.

We are also not increasing memory needs quickly because we are getting increasingly better at dealing with textures from a programming standpoint as well (compressing, shading, etc). Proof that programming is getting significantly better is as simple as looking at the bazaar in EQ. Before dx9.0 and good texture compression was properly implemented in EQ even a 9800xt would be brought to it's knees by that zone. Now my old 64mb 8500LE can handle that zone when it's totally full with hardly a stutter at 1280x1024. The memory available hasn't changed and the number of textures has actually increased, but since the programming is 100 times better than it originally was the zone is completely playable now.

All in all the situation is simple. Increases in RAM requirements are rising at a slower rater than ever before and this trend should continue for some time. The need for 512, 1GB, etc. is inevitable, but won't be needed nearly as quickly as the need for 128 was when we were at 64, or the as quickly as the need for 16mb when we only had 8.
 
The funny thing is, i dont think D3 or HL2 will be able to live up to the hype, i think we are all going to be disappointed.
 
Mushroom Prince said:
you have no credibility because your a wintel user
Click to expand...
you had no credibility to begin with.
:rolleyes:
arentol said:
512MB won't provide futureproofing of any kind because current GPU's are going to be hugely out of date before any game requires 512MB.
Click to expand...
i have a ti4200 w/ 128mb. dont even try to debate with me about futureproofing. :(
 
arentol said:
512MB won't provide futureproofing of any kind because current GPU's are going to be hugely out of date before any game requires 512MB.

Next year 256MB will still be plenty of RAM... I have a 2 year old 9700 with 128mb (which was alot at the time) of RAM and there is no game out today that I can't play at 1280x1024 on it with medium settings. 2 years from now the current cards with 256MB of RAM should still let you play every game that comes out at atleast 1280x1024, including Unreal 3.

Furthermore, RAM prices don't really decrease, the RAM just gets faster, so top end RAM stays at the same price. Moving to 512MB is going to drastically increase the price of cards unless they don't use the fastest RAM available. So then the question becomes which is more important, texture memory, RAM speed, or Price? As long as texture compression technology continues to improve more RAM isn't needed all that badly and speed and price will continue to be the most important points. Once we reach the reasonable limits of texture compression then we MAY be forced to increase available RAM, however we may not....

What people seem to forget is that the reason RAM needs increased so fast over the last 7 years is because we have, until recently, been playing catchup. In the past we needed an ever increasing amount of texture memory, even with compression, to handle everything that is on screen at once and make it all look good. That's why the amount of memory was increased on cards as soon as prices would allow. There was just no way to make 128x128 textures look good so enough memory needed to be available to use 256x256 textures, then enough for 512x512, 1024x1024 etc... However each further step up provides less relative benefit from the previous texture size. Today we are almost using as large of textures as we reasonably need to for modern computer resolutions. What is now going to drive the need for more memory is the increase in the shear numbers of individual textures that are going to start being used, and the increased use of other memory using stuff like normal maps. These and other things will increase memory need over time, but it isn't nearly as drastic an increase as we used to experience before we got up to current texture resolutions.

We are also not increasing memory needs quickly because we are getting increasingly better at dealing with textures from a programming standpoint as well (compressing, shading, etc). Proof that programming is getting significantly better is as simple as looking at the bazaar in EQ. Before dx9.0 and good texture compression was properly implemented in EQ even a 9800xt would be brought to it's knees by that zone. Now my old 64mb 8500LE can handle that zone when it's totally full with hardly a stutter at 1280x1024. The memory available hasn't changed and the number of textures has actually increased, but since the programming is 100 times better than it originally was the zone is completely playable now.

All in all the situation is simple. Increases in RAM requirements are rising at a slower rater than ever before and this trend should continue for some time. The need for 512, 1GB, etc. is inevitable, but won't be needed nearly as quickly as the need for 128 was when we were at 64, or the as quickly as the need for 16mb when we only had 8.
Click to expand...



I second that
 
I play FarCry maxxed with my 9700Pro 128. YOu knwo why? The very thought that even NEXT YEAR 256 will be used is laughable.
 
The problem is that people have been led to believe that the amount of RAM on a vid card is the determining factor on how good it is. The amount of RAM is only one of 5 dozen (as mentioned before) factors in the card's performance. The reason that RAM isn't a big factor is because a developer is going to optimize their game so that as many people as possible can still play it. Designing it to use a lot of RAM could limit users who don't have enough.

Unfortunately the average consumer has no idea what's going on and the higher the number the better. :rolleyes:
 
If PCI-express takes off, 512MB might never really catch on for gamers.

As is now, 128MB is fine for near every game at 1600x1200 (high AF and AA) or below. 256MB will probably do for quite a while, PCI-express motherboard memory texturing (its still quite slow compared to local GDDR3) should fill the gap for the rare few if any times a game goes outside the bounds of 256MB in the near future.
 
as is ALWAYS the case.... videocard manufacturer's slap on more memory at least a generation too early.
Ex:

GF was too early to use 128MB
FX/9800's too early to use 256MB
And now 512MB would be too much for this new generation 6800/x800 to use.

The problem comes from when there is actually enough load to use that much memory the core is too slow.

back to my examples. GF4 64MB vs 128MB the 128MB would be faster when you enabled 1600x1200 with 4aa, etc.. but it was at 15fps vs 22fps. Neither are high enough to be playable. who cares about a 50% improvement at that level

With this generaton, by the time the card actually started using over 256MB of ram, I would be willing to be the FPS would be below a playable gaming situation. SO to say its faster would do no good. 15fps maybe faster than 10fps but neither are playable!

Besides with PCIe having full duplex bandwidth AND DDR2 having more bandwidth than the FSB can even use. It might be easier/cheaper to just use more memory on the PCIe bus.
 
advanced101101 said:
The funny thing is, i dont think D3 or HL2 will be able to live up to the hype, i think we are all going to be disappointed.
Click to expand...

Bite your tongue!!!! Such blasphamy!!!
 
I understand what you guys are saying about RAM being only one piece of the puzzel. Could someone please explain why the 9800 Pro 128 dosen't perform as well as the 9800 Pro 256? This is an honest question by the way. I'm just curious if anyone has an answer.
 
jackdhammer said:
I understand what you guys are saying about RAM being only one piece of the puzzel. Could someone please explain why the 9800 Pro 128 dosen't perform as well as the 9800 Pro 256? This is an honest question by the way. I'm just curious if anyone has an answer.
Click to expand...

It does untill you get texture/geometry data in excess of 128MB.

==>Lazn
 
Mushroom Prince said:
you have no credibility because your a wintel user


but thats just me
:cool:
Click to expand...
So, is a 256Mb fx5200 any more futureproof than a 128Mb fx5200? Wait, both cards are garbage, and the extra RAM only makes it perform worse.
 
jackdhammer said:
I understand what you guys are saying about RAM being only one piece of the puzzel. Could someone please explain why the 9800 Pro 128 dosen't perform as well as the 9800 Pro 256? This is an honest question by the way. I'm just curious if anyone has an answer.
Click to expand...

Make sure you're talking about (get your Megabytes/MB vs BITS correct)
128MB vs 256MB,
not 128-bit vs 256-bit (memory interface)

128bit only has have the bandwidth that the 256-bit does. this "128" card blows a55.

Now on a 128MB card vs 256MB card there is very little difference in most scenarios. Until you really start maxing the card out (ie: large textures + 1600x1200+ 4AA + etc.).

And at that point a 50% increase in performance from 20fps to 30fps... is still virtually a slide show. So its kinda useless, like I was saying. Now, at 1280x1024 4xAA, etc.. something either card can handle at playable fps, there will be practically NO difference in the 2 cards. (unless that are clocked differently)

P.S. if you're buying a crappy 5200/9200 all you need is 64MB of ram, b/c thats all the core really has enough power to use. Besides that just shoot yourself if you actually buy one of those POS. 5900xt $180 is the minimum card I would get for a gamer. And if they had a little more budget $, I'd say get a 9800 Pro $210, then more a 6800 $300, more x800 pro $430, more 6800U
 
Mushroom Prince said:
not really since I got my 2500 Barton at a computer show for $50 :p
Click to expand...


I saw a Cyrix II at the flee market for 65$ last week.

i'm implying anything though... ;)
 
I'm going to go take some prescription drugs right now because this sentence is making my blood boil:


YOu know there is about 5 dozen other factors that determine a cards performance other than the memory on it and you want to sit and bitch about how the new high end video cards don't have 512 memory on them ?

I guess people see the amount of memory on video cards TOO MUCH in the specs. Its got to be like clockspeed or something where those easy to read numbers are the first thing a dealer spits out at you.
Click to expand...


hahaha, Owned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top