When do the 512MB video cards come out?
- Thread starter Reilly311
- Start date
Megadrive1988
Veteran
I'll skipp 512 MB and go straight for 1 GB cards next year, hopefully R5xx and NV50 cards will go to 1 GB before the end of next year.
as for 512 MB cards, I thought ATI was meant to have one this summer/fall...
as for 512 MB cards, I thought ATI was meant to have one this summer/fall...
the 512 MB cards seem to be late from both ATi and nVidia
both parties first insinuated that there would be 512MB boards late this summer
then later on they seemed to change their mind and when I asked them both a little more than a month ago they basically told me that the boards were on their way out the door and that press samples were a few days or weeks away
oh well I don't really see the need for 'em, only thing right now would be Doom 3 in ultra quality and it runs fine enough to make it totally uneccesary to upgrade from a 256 MB X800/6800
I'd rather just wait for a next gen board and go with 512 MB then, seems much more sane
both parties first insinuated that there would be 512MB boards late this summer
then later on they seemed to change their mind and when I asked them both a little more than a month ago they basically told me that the boards were on their way out the door and that press samples were a few days or weeks away
oh well I don't really see the need for 'em, only thing right now would be Doom 3 in ultra quality and it runs fine enough to make it totally uneccesary to upgrade from a 256 MB X800/6800
I'd rather just wait for a next gen board and go with 512 MB then, seems much more sane
DukenukemX
Newcomer
Why would you need 512 MB video cards? I can think of a few good reasons why not to release 512 MB cards.
1. No body buys $500 256 MB video cards. Therefore nobody is going to buy $600 or $700 512 MB video cards.
2. Most games don't even really need 256 MB. You would need FarCry set to 1600X1200 with max AA and Ansi to even see the benefit of a 256 MB card. Which is why a Radeon 9600 Xt with 256 MBs is a joke.
3. Only reason people got worried about 512 MB cards is because of Doom3 ultra quality setting. Which uses almost no texture compression. With ATI's 3Dc and DXTC I don't see much of a reason to use uncompressed textures. If we're not using texture compression we're moving backwards not forward.
If you're one of those people who own a 256 MB Radeon 9600 or Geforce FX 5600/5700 I'd be more careful where you spend your money. Unless you plan to run games at 1600X1200 with all the goodies turned on the extra memory isn't going to be helpful. Not just any games but FarCry and Doom3 are the only games I've seen that really need 256 MB. Doom3 doesn't need 256 MB if you compress the normal maps.
1. No body buys $500 256 MB video cards. Therefore nobody is going to buy $600 or $700 512 MB video cards.
2. Most games don't even really need 256 MB. You would need FarCry set to 1600X1200 with max AA and Ansi to even see the benefit of a 256 MB card. Which is why a Radeon 9600 Xt with 256 MBs is a joke.
3. Only reason people got worried about 512 MB cards is because of Doom3 ultra quality setting. Which uses almost no texture compression. With ATI's 3Dc and DXTC I don't see much of a reason to use uncompressed textures. If we're not using texture compression we're moving backwards not forward.
If you're one of those people who own a 256 MB Radeon 9600 or Geforce FX 5600/5700 I'd be more careful where you spend your money. Unless you plan to run games at 1600X1200 with all the goodies turned on the extra memory isn't going to be helpful. Not just any games but FarCry and Doom3 are the only games I've seen that really need 256 MB. Doom3 doesn't need 256 MB if you compress the normal maps.
DukenukemX said:
on the other hand if you are like some people (including me), "the money is not an issue" type of guy then it certainly won't hurt to have 512 MB
I was hoping for a 512 MB board this winter
a new patch for Doom 3 and a 512 MB gfx and I'm ready to play it through once more at 1600x1200 4xAA716xAF ultra quality
about the reasons for not releasing the board I think you can see that logic simply doesn't apply to this
there's 256 MB FX 5200 non-Ultras out there with 64 bit memory buses basically they can't even run shit with AA/AF disabled, much less with it enabled in high res in the latest games (which as you pointed out is the only situation where its really needed)
yet they exist and nvidia and ati sells loads of them
I work for a reseller and I see this every day, people look at our selection of videocards and when they get to choose between a 5600 non ultra 256 MB and a 5700 Ultra they go for the 5600 since it has more memory
just like a lot people go into the store and rather buy a 2.4 GHz Celeron than a 2.0 GHz Pentium 4 even though the P4 kicks its arse
as for nobody buys high end videocard, lots of people do depending on where you live
in europe the high end market is a larger chunk of the market than it is in the states or asia
the nordics for an example, we have loads and loads of high end boards going out through the "home PC program" (buy a PC through work and you get it tax free)
also you might be thinking about the low percentage of high end boards nvidia are used to talk about, fact is that percentage is much higher when we're talking ATi
of course most of this is OEM sales, not retail
and last but not least, when the 512 MB boards are released there will be a price cut on the 256 MB boards, it goes without saying
it's always been like that: the refresh pushes down its predecessors price point
basically it just "takes over" the price point of the current 256 MB X800 and 6800 boards, pushing them down a notch
DukenukemX said:
Far Cry at 1600x1200 with max AA and aniso does need more than 128MB though. So what's your next choice? Even if you don't need 256MB, you might very well need more than the next size down. Unless I'm missing the apparent bunch of cards with something like 192MB of memory...
Apply that to 512MB cards too.
Rys
Judging from the outcry over the apparent lack of XTPEs and--to a lesser extent--6800Us, I propose that people actually do buy $500 video cards. In fact, a few people appear to buy $620 versions of "$500" cards, too.
And 256MB is a target setting for both Call of Duty and Doom 3 before AA. I'd imagine we'll be seeing more detailed textures, not less, in the future.
But the purported lack of GDDR3, puzzling as it is due to higher-volume midrange cards carrying it (e.g., 256MB GDDR3 X700Pros), may well be contributing to the 512MB cards' delayed intro. Either that or both nV and ATi are having trouble producing their boutique cores (400+MHz NV40s and 500+MHz R420s). Or the GDDR3 manufacturers are having trouble hitting 500+MHz reliably (considering some 6800GTs are now hitting the streets with only 900MHz GDDR3). So many variables....
Edit: Enough about a 512MB card's desirability. I don't think one would be *useful* until the next gen of cores, at least 50% faster than the current ones.
And 256MB is a target setting for both Call of Duty and Doom 3 before AA. I'd imagine we'll be seeing more detailed textures, not less, in the future.
But the purported lack of GDDR3, puzzling as it is due to higher-volume midrange cards carrying it (e.g., 256MB GDDR3 X700Pros), may well be contributing to the 512MB cards' delayed intro. Either that or both nV and ATi are having trouble producing their boutique cores (400+MHz NV40s and 500+MHz R420s). Or the GDDR3 manufacturers are having trouble hitting 500+MHz reliably (considering some 6800GTs are now hitting the streets with only 900MHz GDDR3). So many variables....
Edit: Enough about a 512MB card's desirability. I don't think one would be *useful* until the next gen of cores, at least 50% faster than the current ones.
I guess the big question when considering getting a 512Mb card (well, once they do become available anyway) is how long will you have this card for? But even then 512Mb will probably be a good choice anyway. Either you are a pathological upgrader with lots of money and get a new card with every new release/refresh in which case you naturally go for 512Mb since you have the money and want the biggest badass card you can get. Or you want this thing for the next two years or longer in which case you absolutely want 512Mb because future games will use it and more (UE3 anyone?).
Scaling texture resolution is ridiculously easy and by now most games will be using multiple textures per surface (diffuse, specular, normal, horizon, etc...) which will continue to increase. If they were to release cards with 2Gb memory now you can bet that devs would love it and have games using it released within a year (assuming the card can handle the bandwidth and so on required to make it worthwhile).
Scaling texture resolution is ridiculously easy and by now most games will be using multiple textures per surface (diffuse, specular, normal, horizon, etc...) which will continue to increase. If they were to release cards with 2Gb memory now you can bet that devs would love it and have games using it released within a year (assuming the card can handle the bandwidth and so on required to make it worthwhile).
The problem with so much memory on these cards is that OEM's have to use cutting-edge memory technology to give these chips the bandwidth they need. 512meg of DDR400 memory is cheap. 512 meg of 800mhz GDDR3? Er...
Ideally, ATI's hypermemory will work well, but we'll see. I'd be surprised to see 512meg cards get anywhere close to the mainstream, even for next year.
That's not to say there's no benefit. Yes, Doom3 doesn't really "need" more than 256 megs - but look at those textures. To hell with uncompressing everything, increase the res of those normal maps! With new effects come new demands for memory. We're not seeing large advances with 256megs as that memory capacity is still a relatively small part of the market for developers, more low-end 9600/5600 cards probably shipped with 256 than most high-end cards where it can actually be used before bogging the card down completely.
Ideally, ATI's hypermemory will work well, but we'll see. I'd be surprised to see 512meg cards get anywhere close to the mainstream, even for next year.
That's not to say there's no benefit. Yes, Doom3 doesn't really "need" more than 256 megs - but look at those textures. To hell with uncompressing everything, increase the res of those normal maps! With new effects come new demands for memory. We're not seeing large advances with 256megs as that memory capacity is still a relatively small part of the market for developers, more low-end 9600/5600 cards probably shipped with 256 than most high-end cards where it can actually be used before bogging the card down completely.
RingWraith
Newcomer
Unless prices on memory drop considerably in the next few years, (which isn't likely) be prepared to spend around a 1,000$ for a video card with 1GB of memory.
Goragoth said:
[source: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12514 (direct link: http://www.beyondunreal.com/content/articles/95_1.php )
If you can afford it, it's always worth getting the best. The additional memory always makes a differences towards the tailend of a cards life. Just look at the Radeon 9800s, the 256MB cards are able to run with higher settings in some games than their 128MB counter-parts. It's not a huge difference, but if you had the money it's one you might consider worth paying for.
