Beyond3D Forum
Page 90 of 223 « First 4080818283848586878889 90 919293949596979899100140190 Last »
Show 75 post(s) from this thread on one page

Beyond3D Forum (http://forum.beyond3d.com/index.php)
-   Pre-release GPU Speculation (http://forum.beyond3d.com/forumdisplay.php?f=51)
-   -   The NEXT LAST R600 Rumours & Speculation Thread (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=39173)

Shtal 16-Apr-2007 07:18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete (Post 970452)
Shtal, without knowing Xbit's settings or even Gothic 3's VRAM recommendations I can't say definitively, but it sure looks like lack of RAM. Of course, that isn't a surprise, given how little VRAM the GTS-320 has compared to the other cards. According to Gamespot, Gothic 3's "Recommended" VRAM is 256MB. The framerate snob's rule of thumb is twice the recommended system specs for smooth performance, so 320MB comes up short. HW.fr has such nice comparison charts when it comes to these things.

Just like it's generally silly to strap 512MB RAM on a 9600 (except in the rare cases like maybe MMOs that gobble up VRAM but may not need a fillrate monster to be playable), so it seems similarly silly to ship an 8800 with less than 512MB.

But I'm sure you knew all that, so I'm not sure why you asked. If your point is that more VRAM is generally safer and better, then I can agree. But I hesitate to use extreme cases like uncompressed textures for minimal IQ gain as proof of what future games will require, because those future games will probably involve a lot of other performance variables (more specific than just "they'll run slower" :wink: ). I'm sure Crysis and lots of upcoming will use more VRAM in general, and specifically will probably require more than 512MB with high settings.
You gave excellent answer and I appreciate that very much, thanks again!
And yes more video memory is generally safer/better! plus not only that but architecture design plays important role as well "Finally came to understanding :) :) :) :) "


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete (Post 970452)
But I hesitate to use extreme cases like uncompressed textures for minimal IQ gain as proof of what future games will require, because those future games will probably involve a lot of other performance variables (more specific than just "they'll run slower"
:( Ok....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete (Post 970452)
But I'm sure you knew all that, so I'm not sure why you asked.
Correct! "The reason I said that because why would you need 512MB memory on Radeon 9600, it is plain stupid.... also why would someone do stupid thing and make G80 less then w/ 512MB memory" That's what bother me....

erick 16-Apr-2007 07:24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete (Post 970410)
Me, I think devs will still set standards based on the broadest market segments available, and 320MB is an odd bird. I can see 128MB, 256MB, 512MB, and probably 768+MB (rather than 1GB) as standard targets in the near future. I'm skeptical about 1GB being a game dev target in the next two years, but maybe I'm giving the 768MB G80 too much credit (tho 384-bit is a logical progression from 256-bit, just like 24 from 16 "pipes," I'll wait til G80's refresh or replacement to see if NV sticks with it or if it was an acceptable compromise to get G80 out on 90nm and so far ahead of R600), or Tim Sweeney's comment too little.
I think you're giving the G80 too much credit. ;) The probability of the 384bit bus becoming a standard solution that is implemented across all product ranges is miniscule at best. Also, the 768MB will not become an important target for game dev's, because it is just one card. In all probability, nothing before it and nothing after it will use the same memory configuration.

My guess is that in a year's time the 8800 GTX owners will be browsing the tweak guides in a desperate search for the best settings in new games, that look good while not exceeding the 768MB limit.

Shtal 16-Apr-2007 08:12
If ATI/AMD makes R600 512MB and 1GB memory I'm Ok with that, as lone their mind is clear not to make R600 with only 256MB, it simply will be obsolete, nothing to add.
But if they make RV6xx with 256MB, who cares! it fits perfectly.

But G80-768MB vs. 1GB R600 I'm still forward to see that in action, but at the beginning you probably be disappointed because it is overkill right now for games.

DemoCoder 16-Apr-2007 10:09
My guess is, in a years time, people will be wondering why they have to crank up resolution and AA to insane levels before RAM makes a difference on their next-gen cards.

The idea of a developer targeting 1Gb of VRAM is idiotic at this point.

_xxx_ 16-Apr-2007 10:56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shtal (Post 970457)
"The reason I said that because why would you need 512MB memory on Radeon 9600, it is plain stupid.... also why would someone do stupid thing and make G80 less then w/ 512MB memory" That's what bother me....
9600 with 512 MB is just a marketing argument for the less knowledgable masses, while the 320MBG80 is there to hit a nice price point for people who want the G80 cheaper. No real sense there otherwise, just filling all possible pricing slots.

erick 16-Apr-2007 11:34
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemoCoder (Post 970505)
My guess is, in a years time, people will be wondering why they have to crank up resolution and AA to insane levels before RAM makes a difference on their next-gen cards.

The idea of a developer targeting 1Gb of VRAM is idiotic at this point.
I think it was Tim Sweeney who said in an interview that Unreal Engine 3 will require 1GB of video memory to run in full glory. Currently there's 25 games out or in work based on this engine, so it would not be preposterous to guess that many of these will make use of 1GB of video memory as well.

EDIT: Here's the link and the quote:

http://www.beyondunreal.com/content/articles/95_1.php

Quote:
BU: UT2004 required 5.5 gigs of hard drive space to install. This has got to be a strain a lot of people's systems. So you're talking 2048 x 2048 texture sets, what kind of system and memory is this next game going to take?

TS: Well, we are aiming at the kind of PC that we think will be mainstream in 2006. We will also be able to scale it down. Basically DirectX 9 cards will be minimum spec, so any DirectX 9 shipping today will be capable of running our game, but probably at reduced detail. If you only have a 256 meg video card you will be running the game one step down, whereas if you have a video card with a gig of memory then you'll be able to see the game at full detail.

bigtabs 16-Apr-2007 12:51
Quote:
I think it was Tim Sweeney who said in an interview that Unreal Engine 3 will require 1GB of video memory to run in full glory.
Actually I believe he was referring to UT3 not UE3. A game based on the UE3 engine shouldn't require any more texture memory than the developers decide to use.

I don't think Roboblitz or Rainbow 6 Vegas require 1 gig VRAM.

AlexV 16-Apr-2007 13:03
I don`t think you should take what Tim Sweeney said at that point in time by heart. He`s been wrong/over-optimistic before, you know ;). There`s absolutely no indication whatsoever that suddenly, because ATi, our lords and saviours, will bring a 1 GB card to the market, everybody and their dog will start targeting that in any meaningful way. The industry doesn`t quite work like that.

_xxx_ 16-Apr-2007 13:14
That was by no means a definite statement, rather a vague estimation. Might as well be meant like the ultra-quality mode in Doom3, for example.


As for Sweeney's statements, his prediction of moving the gfx stuff to the CPU and GPU's disappearing alltogether seems to be coming along fine, looking at those Intel slides in the other thread ;)

bigtabs 16-Apr-2007 13:45
I think it was Mark Rein who said fairly recently that 2x8800GTX in SLI with the fastest quad core available wouldn't be able to play this game maxed out.

Then he went on to state that it would be something you would be able to showcase your new hardware with for some time after release. This would indicate a higher texture requirement in my book.

Ah, here it is... LINK

Quote:
GI: Unreal has always scaled really well, from low-end hardware all the way to the high end. Where do you think the sweet spot is? What do you think it takes for a rig to be able to put Unreal through all of its paces?

Rein: We always aim Unreal for systems that people don’t have yet. (laughs) Whether its UT or any Unreal game, so I think the sweet spot has yet to show up. Again, it’s 64-bit and a ton of RAM, like an NVIDIA dual 8800s and Core 2 Extreme Quad processor—you could certainly build a super rig, but UT3 with everything turned up all the way is still going to struggle on that kind of thing. A year from now, it’ll still be a game that is a showcase game for whatever hardware you happen to be getting then. That’s normal. That’s exactly the way we’ve done it every time from the original. The format hasn’t changed there. But you’re right, we try very hard to make sure it runs well on what the average gamer has. It’ll definitely be hard to reach the bottom this time, because with UT2004, we had a software renderer, so it could run on virtually anything. We’re hoping to have that capability at some point with this series, but I don’t know for sure or when.

Geo 16-Apr-2007 13:50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete (Post 970452)
Shtal, without knowing Xbit's settings or even Gothic 3's VRAM recommendations I can't say definitively, but it sure looks like lack of RAM. Of course, that isn't a surprise, given how little VRAM the GTS-320 has compared to the other cards. According to Gamespot, Gothic 3's "Recommended" VRAM is 256MB. The framerate snob's rule of thumb is twice the recommended system specs for smooth performance, so 320MB comes up short. HW.fr has such nice comparison charts when it comes to these things.

Just like it's generally silly to strap 512MB RAM on a 9600 (except in the rare cases like maybe MMOs that gobble up VRAM but may not need a fillrate monster to be playable), so it seems similarly silly to ship an 8800 with less than 512MB.

But I'm sure you knew all that, so I'm not sure why you asked. If your point is that more VRAM is generally safer and better, then I can agree. But I hesitate to use extreme cases like uncompressed textures for minimal IQ gain as proof of what future games will require, because those future games will probably involve a lot of other performance variables (more specific than just "they'll run slower" :wink: ). I'm sure Crysis and lots of upcoming will use more VRAM in general, and specifically will probably require more than 512MB with high settings.

Razor1, thanks much for the links. I meant the VRAM usage article Ail mentioned, but the G80 article was also great, so no harm in linking it. :)
I've been saying for months that this is going to be an interesting area to watch, as the dynamics of cost vs performance implications of various framebuffer sizes get worked out. It *isn't* that straightforward, as you've been trying to tell Shtal. Using 640MB vs 320MB as an example is not going to reliably tell you what happens with 768MB vs 512MB, or 1GB vs 768MB, or (possibly at some point) 512MB vs 384MB.

For instance, we specifically asked NV pre-release if they could point at specific current or near term scenarios where 768MB would be a performance win over 512MB, and they couldn't. Now, that doesn't mean none exist nor ever will. It probably means they have limited resources to go hunting for such (they read reviews as avidly as the rest of us, and for partly the same reason --to collect this kind of data).

Maybe they've found some since, dunno (this was 5 months ago, after all). No one should lose sight of the fact that some of these framebuffer sizes are not being driven by willy-waving, or even optimum performance considerations --possible memory configurations given bus width and memories available on the market plays a large role.

Anteru 16-Apr-2007 13:54
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtabs (Post 970566)
Then he went on to state that it would be something you would be able to showcase your new hardware with for some time after release. This would indicate a higher texture requirement in my book.
I'd rather guess you can turn the shadow samples and such stuff up to insane levels. I doubt they'll bother making 25 GiB of textures for a "high" setting that screams for 2 GiB of Video-RAM which you can enable 2008 or 2009.

IbaneZ 16-Apr-2007 14:35
Quote:
The X2900 XT (512mb/256bit) is slower then 8800 gtx.
The 2900 XT/512mb does 10200 in 3D 06 stock clocks vs 8800 gtx @ 10900
both using QX6700 @ 3.6 testing.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...4&postcount=29

256bit? Typo perhaps? This Dynasty guy is apparently one of those hardcore overclockers who often knows whats going on. :smile:

I'm dying here! Please release the cards! :lol:

erick 16-Apr-2007 14:59
This is just too much :)

If its true... On the one hand I'd be thoroughly disappointed, but on the other impressed that they were able to pull such 8800GTX-rivalling performance out of a 256bit card. And that would make the 512bit 2900XTX doubly worth waiting for, I guess ;)

Geo 16-Apr-2007 15:08
256-bit GDDR3 card? Umm, that makes like zero sense. . .

erick 16-Apr-2007 15:11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo (Post 970609)
256-bit GDDR3 card? Umm, that makes like zero sense. . .
But it does make one wonder how far would AMD go to cut the price tag on this card without hurting their own wallet in the process...

_xxx_ 16-Apr-2007 15:14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo (Post 970609)
256-bit GDDR3 card? Umm, that makes like zero sense. . .
XL maybe? :???:

bigtabs 16-Apr-2007 15:17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anteru (Post 970571)
I'd rather guess you can turn the shadow samples and such stuff up to insane levels. I doubt they'll bother making 25 GiB of textures for a "high" setting that screams for 2 GiB of Video-RAM which you can enable 2008 or 2009.
Who mentioned 2GiB vram? I thought the discussion was about the usefulness of 1 gig. :???:

I'm sure your opinions can have their own validity without having to exaggerate mine to prove your point. :razz:

suryad 16-Apr-2007 15:29
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtabs (Post 970566)
I think it was Mark Rein who said fairly recently that 2x8800GTX in SLI with the fastest quad core available wouldn't be able to play this game maxed out.

Then he went on to state that it would be something you would be able to showcase your new hardware with for some time after release. This would indicate a higher texture requirement in my book.

Ah, here it is... LINK
Good lord! Is that even...possible?! I dont recall the other UT games being this stressful on the hardware.

trinibwoy 16-Apr-2007 16:08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo (Post 970609)
256-bit GDDR3 card? Umm, that makes like zero sense. . .
I saw it too and although the guy has a good rep I assumed it was a typo. Has to be....

bigtabs 16-Apr-2007 16:20
Quote:
Originally Posted by suryad (Post 970626)
Good lord! Is that even...possible?! I dont recall the other UT games being this stressful on the hardware.
Indeed. They're certainly not lacking in shader grunt so where is the shortfall with that setup?

Memory perhaps? :smile:

Razor1 16-Apr-2007 16:30
Ok did the benchmarking of the core and ram overclock here ya guys go :) I ended up using FEAR, easier to benchmark ;)

http://www.mediafire.com/?0mtnyjxmnzt

Bjorn 16-Apr-2007 16:43
Quote:
Originally Posted by erick (Post 970602)
but on the other impressed that they were able to pull such 8800GTX-rivalling performance out of a 256bit card. And that would make the 512bit 2900XTX doubly worth waiting for, I guess ;)
Not that i believe that the 256 bit rumours are true but which nr's are you using to get 8800 GTX rivaling performance ? 3D Mark ?

icecold1983 16-Apr-2007 16:46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor1 (Post 970658)
Ok did the benchmarking of the core and ram overclock here ya guys go :) I ended up using FEAR, easier to benchmark ;)

http://www.mediafire.com/?cylcmyvdmnt
have i entered the twilight zone?

Evildeus 16-Apr-2007 16:47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor1 (Post 970658)
Ok did the benchmarking of the core and ram overclock here ya guys go :) I ended up using FEAR, easier to benchmark ;)

http://www.mediafire.com/?cylcmyvdmnt
Where is your R600 bench? ;)


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:56.
Page 90 of 223 « First 4080818283848586878889 90 919293949596979899100140190 Last »
Show 75 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.