ATI’s RADEON X850 XT 512MB: Not a Significant Design Challen

[Unknown Soldier]

ATI’s RADEON X850 XT 512MB: Not a Significant Design Challenge, Says ATI.

ATI Technologies showcased on Thursday its first graphics card with 512MB of GDDR3 memory, especially noticing that the design challenge about the actual board was not that serious. Still, it is yet unclear whether and when such products are projected to emerge in retail.

“I wouldn’t think this would be a substantial rework, certainly not like designing a new board design from scratch,†ATI’s spokeswoman Patricia Mikula said.

ATI RADEON X850 XT 512MB graphics card looks similar to ATI’s RADEON X850 XT 256MB flavour: both have nearly the same power supply circuitry, coolers, etc., the actual difference is in memory layout.

ATI Technologies, the world’s largest supplier of graphics and multimedia processors, will demonstrate its graphics cards with 512MB of onboard memory at the Texas Gaming Festival in Dallas, February 25th to 27th, 2004.

The world’s first 512MB graphics card is powered by ATI’s latest RADEON X850 XT visual processing unit (VPU) with 16 pixel and 6 vertex pipelines clocked at 520MHz. The graphics card’s 512MB of GDDR3 SDRAM operate at 1080MHz speed and have 256-bit memory interface. The graphics card uses 256Mb GDDR3 memory chips from Samsung, not recently introduced 512Mb devices. While 512MB of onboard memory seems astonishing, that large amount of GDDR3 may not boost performance in present games, but provide some benefits for titles that are in the works at this point of time.

ATI’s spokeswoman Patricia Mikula said on Wednesday the RADEON X850 XT 512MB graphics cards were intended to demonstrate the next-generation capability to gamers and then send the similar boards to game developers. She declined to comment whether the company’s next-breed of graphics cards powered by the upcoming code-named R520 VPU would have 512MB of memory onboard, even though this would be a logical projection for the company’s roadmap. Ms Mikula also said the company was considering commercial RADEON X850 512MB products for PCI Express x16 bus, but the final decision has not been made.

During the event world champion overclockers – Eric Kronies, Charles Wirth and Sami Makinen – will be able to set new world records with the RADEON X850 XT with 512MB of memory. Typically top overclockers use extreme methods, such as nitrogen cooling, to boost performance of graphics cards.

News Source: X-bit Labs

 

[Moloch]

Why no the X850 XT-PE? Needs more core clock!

 

[jvd]

Why no the X850 XT-PE? Needs more core clock!

Na , i see more gain by upping my bandwidth not my fillrate . 520/600 is much better than 600/560 in games and if they can provide more cores at 520 then its the better choice

 

[Maintank]

Call me next August when they are available

 

[wireframe]

Call me next August when they are available

I realize this is a running joke, but it is probably close to the truth this time. In one way it probably won't be difficult to get these out soon, but I would not expect them in quantity, so we'll probably see as many "where are these 512MB cards?" as we are seeing about the source of your joke (that was the edit). With the 'delay' getting 512MB parts out I was almost convinced that this would be saved for the next generation of cards. Double the memory capacity is always a good incentive for upgrades. Maybe they don't need that incentive for the next generation and that would suggest that other great goodies are on the conveyor belt. Seeing as how ATI won't have a shocker with SM 3.0 and now 512MB will be 'old hat', I think it's becoming reasonable to expect other great things from R520.

As a consumer I would obviously prefer larger, less frequent updates to products. But these piecemeal ones can be tasty as well.

I definitely think it about time we get more memory, but that would also include using it. I view the memory sizes of today as lagging behind, believing almost all hardware sporting 256MB being capable of much more had they been equipped with 512MB and software to take advantage of it. However, due to this 'delay' I can't see much use for 512MB on a card that doesn't support SM 3.0 because it is becoming increasingly clear that once software comes around to using this larger texture space they will also require SM 3.0 (and perhaps a bit beyond) features.

EDITED

 

[jvd]

I definitely think it about time we get more memory, but that would also include using it. I view the memory sizes of today as lagging behind, believing almost all hardware sporting 256MB being capable of much more had they been equipped with 512MB and software to take advantage of it. However, due to this 'delay' I can't see much use for 512MB on a card that doesn't support SM 3.0 because it is becoming increasingly clear that once software comes around to using this larger texture space they will also require SM 3.0 (and perhaps a bit beyond) features.

A game can use 1 gig of texture ram and not use a single shader .

If you want to go beyond 6x fsaa (and in some cases 6xfsaa ) and increase textures used your going to need more ram. A 512meg card will provide everquest 2 , half life 2 , doom 3 , vampire and other games coming down the pipe more ram that is needed and higher fsaa samples .

Its a win win . Even on a geforce 1 if they had given them more ram someone would have found a way to use it

 

[wireframe]

Even on a geforce 1 if they had given them more ram someone would have found a way to use it

I agree and maybe I was not very clear. The point is that somebody (read: developer) has to actually design for this memory capacity. A 256 MB Geforce is still not going to play Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory because of the tiny bit of shading included in that title. That's how it works. There are limitations.

There are also user governed limitations. Why would you want twice the texture footprint and thus better quality over quality brought by other functionality of the chip's logic?

My point was that developers (well, the industry as a whole really) seems to have decided that 256, and even 128MB, is where it is at. Of course some recent titles run much better on a 256MB card and allows FSAA, etc. But my point is that the the old hardware (think Geforce 3 & 4) can probably render much nicer graphics with increased texture quality. Look at most titles and "medium" still looks like soup. It's awful.

Don't get me wrong, I think that 512MB should have been introduced and developed for a long time ago (with emphasis on 'developed for'). Shaders are wonderful, but there's nothing like good basics. The feeling I am getting now, however, is that the next inflection point for developers where they do design for 512MB will also be SM 3.0 ++. Suddenly it seems that SM 2.0 won't have the longevity it once suggested. I could be wrong.

 

[Hellbinder]

I am so sick of this endless ream of BS about "new products".

If you are going to announce somthing them freaking RELEASE IT. Its become so pathetic for me personally that i have all but lost any interest in this subject. There is no integrity left in this industry.

Nvidia could announce a 1GB Ram card tomorrow if they want to. There are hardly any products on the street from ATi as it is. They are about to *cough* launch *cough* a new architecture that will itself no be really out there for some time.

Its totally and completely unnaceptable and LAME. ATi rebuilt their trashed reputation by offering product to GAMERS and ENTHUSIESTS. Then when the big dogs started getting interested again they Tossed the people that saved them to the Corner like used trash.

All hail the Mighty Dollar.

 

[Hellbinder]

Call me next August when they are available

I realize this is a running joke, but it is probably close to the truth this time. In one way it probably won't be difficult to get these out soon, but I would not expect them in quantity, so we'll probably see as many "where are these 512MB cards?" as we are seeing about the source of your joke (that was the edit). With the 'delay' getting 512MB parts out I was almost convinced that this would be saved for the next generation of cards. Double the memory capacity is always a good incentive for upgrades. Maybe they don't need that incentive for the next generation and that would suggest that other great goodies are on the conveyor belt. Seeing as how ATI won't have a shocker with SM 3.0 and now 512MB will be 'old hat', I think it's becoming reasonable to expect other great things from R520.

As a consumer I would obviously prefer larger, less frequent updates to products. But these piecemeal ones can be tasty as well.

I definitely think it about time we get more memory, but that would also include using it. I view the memory sizes of today as lagging behind, believing almost all hardware sporting 256MB being capable of much more had they been equipped with 512MB and software to take advantage of it. However, due to this 'delay' I can't see much use for 512MB on a card that doesn't support SM 3.0 because it is becoming increasingly clear that once software comes around to using this larger texture space they will also require SM 3.0 (and perhaps a bit beyond) features.

EDITED

No, the benefit of 512 MB of Ram is faster Speeds in recent games with High resolutions and High levels of AA. The effect is immidiate and does not require developers. Its a Driver thing.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I am so sick of this endless ream of BS about "new products".

If you are going to announce somthing them freaking RELEASE IT. Its become so pathetic for me personally that i have all but lost any interest in this subject. There is no integrity left in this industry.

Nvidia could announce a 1GB Ram card tomorrow if they want to. There are hardly any products on the street from ATi as it is. They are about to *cough* launch *cough* a new architecture that will itself no be really out there for some time.

Its totally and completely unnaceptable and LAME. ATi rebuilt their trashed reputation by offering product to GAMERS and ENTHUSIESTS. Then when the big dogs started getting interested again they Tossed the people that saved them to the Corner like used trash.

All hail the Mighty Dollar.

You really feel that way HB?

 

[ANova]

I gotta say I agree. ATI and nvidia are in such a heated battle that they consistently try to outdue each other which is leading to products that never hit the market and increased costs (tetering on insanity) overall to those that do make it.

Overall it's hurting the consumer more then helping him.

 

[martrox]

Bull! It's not hurting....confusing, yes. X800XL's are starting to appear at the suggested retail or less..........think you could have gotten something like it for that price without the nV/ATI competition?

I don't think so........

 

[digitalwanderer]

Bull! It's not hurting....confusing, yes. X800XL's are starting to appear at the suggested retail or less..........think you could have gotten something like it for that price without the nV/ATI competition?

I don't think so........

I gotta agree with Martrox on this one, if they're doing anything they're frustrating the enthusiasts who can't get their new shiny-shinies right when they hear about 'em.

(The Dig pets his modded X800 pro VIVO lovingly...)

 

[Moloch]

Why no the X850 XT-PE? Needs more core clock!

Na , i see more gain by upping my bandwidth not my fillrate . 520/600 is much better than 600/560 in games and if they can provide more cores at 520 then its the better choice

Ya, but still, I'd like to see it at 550 core.
OT:
Has anyony tested an X800 pro with the memory overclocked to 1ghz, like the 6800GT, and see how it fairs?

 

[martrox]

I've got an X800Pro, flashed to XT PE bios, running at 525/575 and it kicks my 6800GT at 450/1150 pretty good. It's a very noticable difference......

 

[Moloch]

I've got an X800Pro, flashed to XT PE bios, running at 525/575 and it kicks my 6800GT at 450/1150 pretty good. It's a very noticable difference......

Ya, of course, but I'm wondering if the X800 pro stock is limited by memory bandwidth at all, since it's clocked 100 mhz lower than than the 6800GT.

 

[wireframe]

No, the benefit of 512 MB of Ram is faster Speeds in recent games with High resolutions and High levels of AA. The effect is immidiate and does not require developers. Its a Driver thing.

I have not seen any game completely tank when upping the resolution and AA. If you want to see a very good example of that happening, run Call of Duty on a 128MB card and set textures to "extra". Frame rate drops by more than half because it is running out of on-board memory and utilizing the bus. Far Cry, Doom 3, and Half-Life 2 behave more like you would expect them to from processing requirements going up.

So adding memory only works in one directions really. If you have too little, performance tanks. If you have twice what you need you will not see increased performance. Naturally, the game content can't be targetted at all resolutions and video memory sizes so you may get some 'scraping along' where there are some swaps and having the extra memory would help alleviate that.

 

[jvd]

play everquest 2 and tell me that , or use 8x fsaa from nvidia

You ever think why ati hasn't moved past 6x fsaa ? I'm sure there are alot of games from 2 years ago that could have mroe than 6x fsaa but the ram just isn't there

 

[wireframe]

play everquest 2 and tell me that , or use 8x fsaa from nvidia

You ever think why ati hasn't moved past 6x fsaa ? I'm sure there are alot of games from 2 years ago that could have mroe than 6x fsaa but the ram just isn't there

Oh, I am sure there will be games that may benefit from it. My original point was that feature levels and memory footprint are connected and it seems that the industry is looking to move beyond SM 2.0 before utlizing memory beyond 256MB on a large scale.

There will always be games that lie on the boundary for various reasons. Bad planning or willingness to go the extra mile to utilize features and specifications of a specific piece of hardware.

BTW, Nvidia 8x FSAA is a very bad example as this is a huge bandwidth limitation as well as requiring a larger framebuffer. In terms of performance, Nvidia 8x is the worst of all worlds. Can look rather nice where it permits, however. There are other reasons why ATI doesn't offer anything beyond x6, but I don't think this has to do with a lack of memory at 256MB. If this were the case they could easily offer x12 FSAA for Quake 2, but they don't. (actually x12 for something like Q2 would probably not be a problem for any reason, but rules are rules) Another way of looking at it is, if memory size is the limiter, then there is no reason why Geforce 6800 (and even FX 5900) should not offer x6 MSAA. Must be something else, right?

 

[jvd]

Oh, I am sure there will be games that may benefit from it. My original point was that feature levels and memory footprint are connected and it seems that the industry is looking to move beyond SM 2.0 before utlizing memory beyond 256MB on a large scale.

No you will see a need on sm 2.0 games

Since sm2.0 games have the highest installed base and will for the foreseable future and 90% of what can be done with sm3.0 can be done on sm2.0 hardware there wont be any reason future games wont support sm2.0

Its sm3.0 that will have the smallest group of games programed for it and even fewer sm3.0 only titles . Actually i doubt we will ever see sm3.0 titles because by the time that would be a wise busniess choice we will already be half way into the wgf 2.0 years