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

[wireframe]

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

It's funny, in another thread you pointed out that ATI will be in the leading console platform to offer PC ports (here). That part you are speaking about will undoubtedly be an SM 3.0 part. Wouldn't this suggest to you that the target is SM 3.0 (where there never was a console with SM 2.0) and that developers may hold their horses with other developments such as building for 512MB cards when these two features converge?

EDIT:

Again I add that I think 512MB on current hardware would make sense if developers had designed for it going back. x800 and 6800 should have been initially released with 512MB and developers should have targetted it for them two years back. Now, a year after introduction it is too late. The features do not match up.

 

[jvd]

Right , but who says ati's card will be only sm3.0 ? I highly doubt its only sm3.0 and any port to the pc will have sm2.0 paths as there are many more cards capable of it than sm3.0


ALso there are games that use more than 256 megs , everquest 2 , doom3 and i'm sure in the comming months there will be sm2.0 titles that need it to .

 

[wireframe]

Right , but who says ati's card will be only sm3.0 ? I highly doubt its only sm3.0 and any port to the pc will have sm2.0 paths as there are many more cards capable of it than sm3.0

The way I understand it SM 3.0 is a more significant step than SM 4.0 will be (if that is what you are suggesting). SM 2.0 is great because it vastly increased precision and resources over SM 1.x, but it is lacking in those features where the industry wants to go: complete programmability. In this sense, I view SM 2.0 more as a stepping-stone than a resting place. That is not to say that I think the SM 3.0 level as found in Nvidia's 6000 series to be complete. More is needed and more performance is always welcomed, but these parts do offer what I think developers have been wanting: a more complete looping and branching instruction set allowing 3D code to be written more like something approximating C.

Of course 'lesser' SM paths can and will be created, but is this going to interest the consumer? You could tack 256MB on a Geforce 4 ti and it still won't be running Far Cry in a way that is interesting to the wide market. The lack of SM 2.0 support would make it a half-breed. Personally, I would always want the most memory available as long as it is also fast. This is because you can never have too much memory (given my criteria that it is not less peformant memory or memory interface, etc). But does this make sense to the wider audience? Does a Geforce FX 5200 with 256MB really make sense? (the extreme case)

ALso there are games that use more than 256 megs , everquest 2 , doom3 and i'm sure in the comming months there will be sm2.0 titles that need it to .

I am not informed about Everquest 2, but if it can really use 512MB of video memory then good. I am not contesting that, I am saying that I think the vast majority of titles that will want 512MB will also want something more than current SM 2.0 hardware can provide. As for Doom 3 using 512MB, I think that is a really messy example. Running textures uncompressed is just not a good idea at all. We should have the technology in place to always use compression just like the Internet is not dominated by uncompressed BMPs, but instead use JPEGs. Doom 3 doesn't use better texures in Ultra (512MB requirement) mode. It just doesn't use compression on them. Compressed textures for a 512MB target would mean a real improvement in texture quality and not just a frivolous waste of space because you can.

I get the feeling that Doom 3's Ultra mode was put in as a favor to the IHVs to potentially help 512MB sales. These cards were slow to materialize, showing up just now, and I think that game is over. I would be very surprised if someone found Doom 3's Ultra mode to be a significant improvement in the visual presentation. This is something like the "Great 3Dc Debate". Why would you want to use uncompressed normal maps when you can compress them and hardly lose any quality? Just because you can is not a good answer.

If you care to tell more about Everquest 2 I would be very happy to read about it. If it truly uses texture capacities beyond 256MB I think this is the type of game I would have wished to be the norm for the current vidoe logic (granted that they would have been launched with the memory capacity to run it of course).

 

[wireframe]

I just want to add this:

When people talk about the installed base of SM 2.0 capable hardware I think they suddenly forget the critique they levelled on the Geforce FX line. I think it is safe to say that all Geforce FXs can be discounted from the SM 2.0 installed base and you can even forget about anything ATI lower than Radeon 9700. That makes the market of SM 2.0 Radeon 9700 + X800 (roughly) and I think you will find this is not as many as one might think. This may also be a very flexible segment with owners comprised of people willing to upgrade often to what is needed to play their games.

So, one way of looking at it would be that Nvidia's failure to deliver at SM 2.0 has caused a shift. Nvidia's swift move to SM 3.0 caused an even greater one. ATI must follow, if for no other reason than to have that checkbox when competing for sales.

These are my reasons for believing the market will want to look past SM 2.0 and move on as quickly as possible.

PS. There is another thread about 512MB 6800s and you may wonder and question why I am not posting in there. Is it because I believe the fact that that part is coupled with SM 3.0? Nope. The Gainward release is so obviously a response to this announcement. Their little pissing contest. Just like SM X.X support checkboxes sell, so do memory sizes and nobody wants to lose a sale. It might make a bit more sense for the 6800 to have 512MB, but I think the 'delay' getting to 512MB means that it won't help much as more will be needed for the titles requiring it than the 6800 Ultra can provide.

 

[martrox]

Jesus....can't you two just wait a few days, then we will absolutely know what the value of 512 meg onboard will make, rather than pulling info from your nether regions!

 

[Jawed]

Doesn't HL-2 run out of memory on a 256MB card, running 1600x1200 4xAA:

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/sapphire/x800/index.php?p=10

So we should see a speed-up with 512MB cards.

Also what about higher resolutions. 2048x1536 and 1920x1200. The latter is destined for XBox 2 and PS3, isn't it, so the PC can't be far behind.

HL-2 at 1920x1200 4xAA should be way past the limits of 256MB of RAM.

Jawed

 

[wireframe]

Jesus....can't you two just wait a few days, then we will absolutely know what the value of 512 meg onboard will make, rather than pulling info from your nether regions!

Now now...you can't possibly expect the next few days to be a roll-out of software utilizing and depending on 512MB hardware.

 

[wireframe]

Doesn't HL-2 run out of memory on a 256MB card, running 1600x1200 4xAA:

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/sapphire/x800/index.php?p=10

So we should see a speed-up with 512MB cards.

Also what about higher resolutions. 2048x1536 and 1920x1200. The latter is destined for XBox 2 and PS3, isn't it, so the PC can't be far behind.

HL-2 at 1920x1200 4xAA should be way past the limits of 256MB of RAM.

Jawed

It seems to run out of steam at 1600*1200 (period). But look at the numbers way before that when utilizing 4x FSAA and 8x AF. Even if the 800XL was not running out of memory it would still have very low frame rates (projected) at such high settings you suggest. More memory can allow it to run higher resolution and FSAA without running out of memory, as you suggest, but it can't be saved from tanking due to performance elsewhere. This with a title decidedly not targetted at 512MB (let's just say that HL2 could probably look a lot better by doubling the amount of memory dedicated to textures alone). So, it makes sense from the developer side. The game was made for 256MB hardware and said hardware is aligned to perform within the reasonable range.

I dunno about you, but I think Half-Life 2 at 1024*768 would be more endearing than Quake 2 at 4096*4096.

 

[Jawed]

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/sapphire/x800/index.php?p=10

It seems to run out of steam at 1600*1200 (period).

Look at the graph of fill-rate for HL-2 (not the frame rate table), and compare this graph with the fill-rate graphs for D3, UT2K4 and Far Cry (SCT doesn't support AA).

Only HL-2 shows falling fill-rate for 1600x1200 (AA or not) when compared with 1280x960/1280x1024. None of the other games do this on an X800.

This is why I'm highlighting Baumann's comment that HL-2 appears to be over-committing a 256MB card, and I'm guessing that it should get faster on a 512MB card.

Jawed

 

[wireframe]

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/sapphire/x800/index.php?p=10

It seems to run out of steam at 1600*1200 (period).

Look at the graph of fill-rate for HL-2 (not the frame rate table), and compare this graph with the fill-rate graphs for D3, UT2K4 and Far Cry (SCT doesn't support AA).

Only HL-2 shows falling fill-rate for 1600x1200 (AA or not) when compared with 1280x960/1280x1024. None of the other games do this on an X800.

This is why I'm highlighting Baumann's comment that HL-2 appears to be over-committing a 256MB card, and I'm guessing that it should get faster on a 512MB card.

Jawed

I was agreeing with you. I was simply saying that you don't need AA or AF for this to happen. At 1600*1200 it runs out of memory sufficiently to put a large dent in performance.

What I suggested you do is look away from the fill rate and look at the frame rate. What's the point of maintaining fill rate if your frame rate is 20?

 

[jvd]

think it is safe to say that all Geforce FXs can be discounted from the SM 2.0 installed base and you can even forget about anything ATI lower than Radeon 9700.

9500s up to x850xt pes run sm2.0 just fine. Actually the 9600pro runs sm 2.0 faster than a fx 5900ultra in half lfie 2 . While none of us will play games based on half life 2 coming out in the next year on a 9600 with fsaa and aniso those who have hte 9600pro will still be able to play those games with sm2.0


so you have 9500s=x850s all capable of sm2.0

You have the very high end fxs capable of sm2.0 with no fsaa or aniso or low lvls so the 5900s

Then you have the whole geforce 6xxx line up capable of sm2.0


vs

the geforce 6xxx line up .

So there wont be many sm3.0 games out for at least another year or two and the number of titles that don't have sm2.0 and only sm 3.0 will be much much smaller than that .

add in the fact that ati hardware from the 9500-x850s are capable of g.i so that is another advantage of sm3.0 gone .

Hdr isn't part of sm3.0 and the radeons can do another form of it . while not as good its still nice

 

[Jawed]

9500s up to x850xt pes run sm2.0 just fine. Actually the 9600pro runs sm 2.0 faster than a fx 5900ultra in half lfie 2 .

And the 9800Pro is faster than the 6600GT.

Jawed

 

[jvd]

9500s up to x850xt pes run sm2.0 just fine. Actually the 9600pro runs sm 2.0 faster than a fx 5900ultra in half lfie 2 .

And the 9800Pro is faster than the 6600GT.

Jawed

is it ? I haven't seen any benchmarks to show that .

Though to be honest i haven't really looked. Could make sense as the 9800pro is a 8x1 with a 256bit memory bus vs the 6600gt that is a 4x1 with a 128 bit memory buss. (its a 4x1 right ? )

 

[ANova]

9500s up to x850xt pes run sm2.0 just fine. Actually the 9600pro runs sm 2.0 faster than a fx 5900ultra in half lfie 2 .

And the 9800Pro is faster than the 6600GT.

Jawed

I get around 55 fps average in HL2 at 12x10 with everything at max and no AA/AF, and that's with a 9500 Pro. That card and anything above is more then adaquate at running SM2. Yes, a 9600 Pro does outperform the 5900 Ultra when running DX9 paths. The 6600 GT is slightly faster then a 9800 Pro.

 

[Pete]

The 6600GT is 8x1 in (the more-and-more relevant) shader terms. It has only 4 ROPs, tho, so technically it can only output four pixels per clock. I don't think that's a limitation in newer titles, though. My math may be horribly wrong, but 4 ROPs and 500MHz means a (laughably) theoretical max of ~1000fps. I guess blending may cramp its style more than usual, but that doesn't seem to show up on most benchmarks.

In terms of the shader-laden HL2, tho, the 6600GT is basically as 8x1 as the 9800P.

 

[Jawed]

Shader Heavy:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/2004-27gpu2_11.html

CPU Heavy:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/2004-27gpu2_12.html

You can compare AGP and PCI Express 6600GTs to the 9800Pro.

Jawed

 

[Jawed]

Fuzzy-cam Graphs of the 512MB Speed-up

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...625a2ecdeb736a4e7b2a0&p=732394#post732394

Click on the fourth thumbnail.

There's some big differences there with 512MB. HL-2, Far Cry and D3 Ultra. The latter gaining the least it seems.

30%+ best case.

Jawed

 

[wireframe]

Re: Fuzzy-cam Graphs of the 512MB Speed-up

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?s=4fff4ba38fa625a2ecdeb736a4e7b2a0&p=732394#post732394

Click on the fourth thumbnail.

There's some big differences there with 512MB. HL-2, Far Cry and D3 Ultra. The latter gaining the least it seems.

30%+ best case.

Jawed

That's great and I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that 256MB more memory, given the same speed, won't help performance marginally in certain titles and settings.

For those who can't read the horizontal axis, it is Frame Rate measured between 0 and 90. Again, look at some of those numbers. They are below 40 even. They are showing benchmarks where the old result was 25-30 and now you can get 40. This may look good when read as a percentage improvement but the absolute frame rates are still awful. Remember, this is with an X850 XTPE.

'Old' titles with current top of the line hardware and now 256MB more memory is showing that you needn't hit those hitches when you have to swap out memory. Not impressive given that the overall peformance is 'not great'. If you back off the settings to make it more playable you probably also diminish the difference between the 256MB and 512MB cards.

 

[Jawed]

Yep, no point buying a 512MB card until at least it's an R520.

But there seems little doubt that 512MB makes a significant difference. In the end it'll prolly be easier to measure it as better minimum frame rates.

Those benchmarks are guaranteed to be the most heavy duty parts of the games. And we don't know what resolution they're at.

The highlight is prolly "HL-2 Trainstation" which shows a jump in performance from 54 to 71 (approximately) which is 31%.

I'd still like to know what happens at 2048x1536 and 1920x1200...

Jawed

 

[nagus]

X850 512MB only for Developers!

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_x850xt_512mb_prev/

While ATI has now officially demonstrated their 512MB technology, that doesn’t mean you’ll be able to go out and buy a 512MB X850 XT tomorrow. As of right now, ATI has no official plans to introduce a 512MB card to the public.

We put the words “officialâ€￾ in bold font because ATI hasn’t exactly nailed down their final plans for this board. You just may seem them produce a 512MB card, or they may not. Yesterday’s demonstration was considered a “technology previewâ€￾ of what is to come (hint: think next generation product) and what ATI is capable of doing today.