Pushing The 512MB Barrier On Video Cards 525
Hack Jandy writes "Remeber your ancient TNT graphics card that had 16MB of memory? ATI is pushing the texture barrier by incorporating 512MB in their newest X850 video card lineup. The catch? Even ATI acknowledges there will probably be no performance benefits to bumping the memory support from 256MB to 512MB as the cards are 'intended to demonstrate the next-generation capability to gamers." An anonymous reader points out that Gainward (which sells NVidia-based graphics cards), will shortly introduce its own 512MB card, according to Hexus.net.
Different things pushing memory increases (Score:5, Insightful)
Man you were lucky. I had to deal with a 1MB video card in my job workstation.
Honestly, its not all that impressive to see these high numbers for video card ram. Different needs pushes the limit nowadays. It used to be pushed to deal with higher color palettes at higher resolutions. Now its all about texture mapping.
translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: Even though it's not practical, we'll sell it since gamers will buy it.
Re:512 is better (Score:5, Insightful)
Seeing as how most of the 'realism' of a 3D game comes from detailed textures, yes, size of texture ram does matter.
consumers being deceived (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:512 is better (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why sound cards are no big deal! (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were Creative I'd start including massive amounts of RAM on my cards. Plus, I'd throw a CPU in there too, if there isn't one already, and start hyping the clock speed. I'd even have a program to overclock both.
That way all the ignorant fanboys would start buying them simply for bragging rights.
Re:Fast and Big mem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is why sound cards are no big deal! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's all about numbers. ATI and nVidia can increase clock speed and double memory and make it look really impressive. Sound cards can't really do that.
That and the fact most games spend no time on the sound, so they don't make use of anything a sound-card has to offer.
Re:No performance benefits? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is there any benefit (Score:2, Insightful)
Boy gamers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:translation (Score:4, Insightful)
I dont get it.
Historically, the price of video cards has dropped by around 50% over the course of 12 months. Why are people paying todays prices so they can play tomorrow's [or more!] games?
The only reason I can think of is penis waving. So they can say "mine is bigger than yours!".
If it were otherwise then they would have waited until the game that needed it came out.
Re:512 is better (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The 512MB barrier has already been broken (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GL based window managers (Score:3, Insightful)
First, I doubt a window manager would actually use a 32 bit z-buffer. 8 bit would be overkill here (enought to specify a unique depth for 256 windows). Even a 3D window manager would get by on 16 bit depth no problem, I believe it's the most commonly used depth for most true 3D apps now.
Also, I doubt that in many cases more than a small number of true 3D windows would be needed. Someone who is working with 30+ windows open most likely has mostly terminals, web pages and text editors open, with maybe a few 3D apps.
Re:Shoes to fill out (Score:3, Insightful)
There's still a long way to go and, in fact, I don't think we'll ever reach the point where a single processor will be capable of creating an image on the fly that matches the quality of a prerendered.
Re:GL based window managers (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't matter. The window server (Quartz in my case) treats all of them as texture-mapped polygons, where the "texture" is their actual content.
Re:GL based window managers (Score:3, Insightful)
2D apps treated like textured polys do not need their own depth buffer, frame buffer, etc. They just need a texture buffer, and the window manager treats them like texture polys in a single, comprehensive 3D app. Conventional 3D apps require their own depth buffer, frame buffer, textures, etc. in addition to that used by the window manager. I was pointing out that while the requirements for 30+ 2D apps are fairly large, they are considereably smaller than the same number of true 3D apps, because they have needs beyond the WM overhead.