Why Don't They Increase Memory on Video Cards to 1 MB and ..

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Since the AGP bus doesn't currently represent a bottleneck in performance,
why is it that you don't see really large amounts of memory being put onto
the video card, as a way to improve the speed of rendering texture and
drawing for really large screen sizes? Even in the X800XT Platinum, ATI
only puts 256MB on the video card.

--
Will
westes AT earthbroadcast.com
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

From everything I read, there currently is no advantage to using more than
128MB. Why should the manufacture, and/or, the end user, pay for more than
they can use? It will probably be some time, before they fully utilize
256MB.

Bill Crocker


"CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in
message news:MLadnXAFz_iwg7TcRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> Since the AGP bus doesn't currently represent a bottleneck in performance,
> why is it that you don't see really large amounts of memory being put onto
> the video card, as a way to improve the speed of rendering texture and
> drawing for really large screen sizes? Even in the X800XT Platinum, ATI
> only puts 256MB on the video card.
>
> --
> Will
> westes AT earthbroadcast.com
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

You see a 7 to 15% performance improvement between 128 MB and 256 MB if you
are doing 6x FSAA, at least according to Tom's Hardware.

I'm guessing the real application for 512 MB on the video card would be two
large monitors both doing 6x FSAA at the same time. As gaming becomes more
immersive I would expect to see two to four monitors become very common
place.

--
Will
westes AT earthbroadcast.com


"Bill Crocker" <wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-ZmdnZ3bV-rG2bTcRVn-vg@comcast.com...
> From everything I read, there currently is no advantage to using more than
> 128MB. Why should the manufacture, and/or, the end user, pay for more
than
> they can use? It will probably be some time, before they fully utilize
> 256MB.
>
> Bill Crocker
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in
message news:MLadnXAFz_iwg7TcRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> Since the AGP bus doesn't currently represent a bottleneck in performance,
> why is it that you don't see really large amounts of memory being put onto
> the video card, as a way to improve the speed of rendering texture and
> drawing for really large screen sizes? Even in the X800XT Platinum, ATI
> only puts 256MB on the video card.
>
> --
> Will
> westes AT earthbroadcast.com
>
>


It would greatly increase their price.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Enormous Genitals" <big@dick.com> wrote in message
news:V99Wc.32924$cT6.10278@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> "CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in
> message news:MLadnXAFz_iwg7TcRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> It would greatly increase their price.

So? You don't think there would be a market for a card that could render
elaborate 30 fps scenes on two 21" monitors faster? I would pay more.

--
Will
westes AT earthbroadcast.com
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in
message news:Vqadne2nFcomvrTcRVn-qw@giganews.com...
>
> "Enormous Genitals" <big@dick.com> wrote in message
> news:V99Wc.32924$cT6.10278@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> > "CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in
> > message news:MLadnXAFz_iwg7TcRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> > It would greatly increase their price.
>
> So? You don't think there would be a market for a card that could render
> elaborate 30 fps scenes on two 21" monitors faster? I would pay more.
>
> --
> Will
> westes AT earthbroadcast.com
>
>

Have you ever paid $500 for one of ATI or nVidia's latest graphics cards as
soon as it was released?
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

There are thousands of people paying more than $600/card for the X800XT on
eBay.

Be specific about cost. How much does an extra 256MB of memory for one of
these cards cost the manufacturer, and how would that translate to card
cost?

What are the specific performance improvements that would be seen on such a
card?

--
Will
westes AT earthbroadcast.com


"Enormous Genitals" <big@dick.com> wrote in message
news:WF9Wc.32939$cT6.20498@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Have you ever paid $500 for one of ATI or nVidia's latest graphics cards
as
> soon as it was released?
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Too expensive.

--
DaveW



"CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in
message news:MLadnXAFz_iwg7TcRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> Since the AGP bus doesn't currently represent a bottleneck in performance,
> why is it that you don't see really large amounts of memory being put onto
> the video card, as a way to improve the speed of rendering texture and
> drawing for really large screen sizes? Even in the X800XT Platinum, ATI
> only puts 256MB on the video card.
>
> --
> Will
> westes AT earthbroadcast.com
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

> Since the AGP bus doesn't currently represent a bottleneck in performance,
> why is it that you don't see really large amounts of memory being put onto
> the video card, as a way to improve the speed of rendering texture and
> drawing for really large screen sizes? Even in the X800XT Platinum, ATI
> only puts 256MB on the video card.

Perhaps it's exactly BECAUSE the AGP bus isn't a bottleneck that there's not
more memory on the card. If AGP was limiting RAM access speed, it would be
an advantage to have all the RAM onboard the video card and avoid AGP
traffic. Since there's still headroom left on the AGP bus, you can get
away with less on-card memory and use more system RAM.

Tom Lake
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

1. Cost. The difference in price between the 128 MB and 256 MB is quite
drastic for high-speed memory. (It was some +$150 for the Radeon 9800Pro a
couple of months ago). Going to 1 GB would've added another $300 to the
pricetag and that's assuming higher-density memory doesn't cost more...

2. The games that can overflow 256 MB at 6x FSAA aren't really playable at
6x FSAA...

3. There's only a handful of sims that are playable on two monitors. The
"seam" prevents FPS shooters from being enjoyable.

4. Feel free to purchase the PNY QuadroFX 4400 (based on GF6800U) with 512
MB. It was just announced. When PC parts start to rival sports car upgrades
in cost, though, I'd rather get my entertainment elsewhere...

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


"CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in
message news:MLadnXAFz_iwg7TcRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> Since the AGP bus doesn't currently represent a bottleneck in performance,
> why is it that you don't see really large amounts of memory being put onto
> the video card, as a way to improve the speed of rendering texture and
> drawing for really large screen sizes? Even in the X800XT Platinum, ATI
> only puts 256MB on the video card.
>
> --
> Will
> westes AT earthbroadcast.com
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I currently play FS2004 on dual monitors running at 2048x1536x32, and I
manage to get around 17 fps when doing full screen mode with each monitor
viewing different areas within a virtual cockpit. With one monitor I get
around 24 fps. I get this even with add-on terrain that in some areas is
as detailed as 9.6m. I'm running dual 2.4GHz CPUs, so nothing special
there.

I would certainly appreciate being able to do 6x FSAA in both windows at the
same time. If ATI is going to bother to support two monitors at all, I
don't see why they wouldn't offer memory options that allow those two
monitors to achieve their best possible performance in games.

With ultra-high-end analog monitors like the Viewsonic P817 now going
regularly for under $300/monitor, there is no way that one can argue the
audience for two monitor high resolution gaming isn't a potential consumer
market. The market for just the FS2004 users alone is a consumer
market.

Maybe the long-term direction the graphics cards manufacturers want to move
us is to PCI Express. Supporting multiple high resolution video streams
with 6x FSAA becomes feasible there on probably as many as four monitors
concurrently, each supported by a single video card. I just don't
understand why they wouldn't bother to try enabling two monitors on one
video card. It seems to me they are not very far away from being able to
do that technically, and more memory on the card is one of the obstacles.

--
Will
westes AT earthbroadcast.com


"First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uBdWc.684$izj1.549@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> 1. Cost. The difference in price between the 128 MB and 256 MB is quite
> drastic for high-speed memory. (It was some +$150 for the Radeon 9800Pro a
> couple of months ago). Going to 1 GB would've added another $300 to the
> pricetag and that's assuming higher-density memory doesn't cost more...
>
> 2. The games that can overflow 256 MB at 6x FSAA aren't really playable at
> 6x FSAA...
>
> 3. There's only a handful of sims that are playable on two monitors. The
> "seam" prevents FPS shooters from being enjoyable.
>
> 4. Feel free to purchase the PNY QuadroFX 4400 (based on GF6800U) with 512
> MB. It was just announced. When PC parts start to rival sports car
upgrades
> in cost, though, I'd rather get my entertainment elsewhere...
>
> --
> "War is the continuation of politics by other means.
> It can therefore be said that politics is war without
> bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
>
>
> "CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in
> message news:MLadnXAFz_iwg7TcRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> > Since the AGP bus doesn't currently represent a bottleneck in
performance,
> > why is it that you don't see really large amounts of memory being put
onto
> > the video card, as a way to improve the speed of rendering texture and
> > drawing for really large screen sizes? Even in the X800XT Platinum,
ATI
> > only puts 256MB on the video card.
> >
> > --
> > Will
> > westes AT earthbroadcast.com
> >
> >
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

If you get around 17 fps at 2048x1536 dual-monitor, 6x FSAA will be a
slideshow even with a boatload of video RAM. At such high resolutions, you
also reach a point of diminishing returns with FSAA.

BTW, retail video cards account for less than 5% of overall video card sales
(it's why 3dfx died...). Bleeding edge cards accounts for less than
one-tenth of that, or 0.5%. And price tends to rise disproportionately with
lower volume products...

If you want multi-monitor flightsim goodness, just go to Quantum3D.Com.
Everything is available for immediate delivery, for a price.

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


"CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in
message news:MZednTaUV8hb7LTcRVn-vg@giganews.com...
> I currently play FS2004 on dual monitors running at 2048x1536x32, and I
> manage to get around 17 fps when doing full screen mode with each monitor
> viewing different areas within a virtual cockpit. With one monitor I
get
> around 24 fps. I get this even with add-on terrain that in some areas
is
> as detailed as 9.6m. I'm running dual 2.4GHz CPUs, so nothing special
> there.
>
> I would certainly appreciate being able to do 6x FSAA in both windows at
the
> same time. If ATI is going to bother to support two monitors at all, I
> don't see why they wouldn't offer memory options that allow those two
> monitors to achieve their best possible performance in games.
>
> With ultra-high-end analog monitors like the Viewsonic P817 now going
> regularly for under $300/monitor, there is no way that one can argue the
> audience for two monitor high resolution gaming isn't a potential consumer
> market. The market for just the FS2004 users alone is a consumer
> market.
>
> Maybe the long-term direction the graphics cards manufacturers want to
move
> us is to PCI Express. Supporting multiple high resolution video streams
> with 6x FSAA becomes feasible there on probably as many as four monitors
> concurrently, each supported by a single video card. I just don't
> understand why they wouldn't bother to try enabling two monitors on one
> video card. It seems to me they are not very far away from being able to
> do that technically, and more memory on the card is one of the obstacles.
>
> --
> Will
> westes AT earthbroadcast.com
>
>
> "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uBdWc.684$izj1.549@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > 1. Cost. The difference in price between the 128 MB and 256 MB is quite
> > drastic for high-speed memory. (It was some +$150 for the Radeon 9800Pro
a
> > couple of months ago). Going to 1 GB would've added another $300 to the
> > pricetag and that's assuming higher-density memory doesn't cost more...
> >
> > 2. The games that can overflow 256 MB at 6x FSAA aren't really playable
at
> > 6x FSAA...
> >
> > 3. There's only a handful of sims that are playable on two monitors. The
> > "seam" prevents FPS shooters from being enjoyable.
> >
> > 4. Feel free to purchase the PNY QuadroFX 4400 (based on GF6800U) with
512
> > MB. It was just announced. When PC parts start to rival sports car
> upgrades
> > in cost, though, I'd rather get my entertainment elsewhere...
> >
> > --
> > "War is the continuation of politics by other means.
> > It can therefore be said that politics is war without
> > bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
> >
> >
> > "CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in
> > message news:MLadnXAFz_iwg7TcRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> > > Since the AGP bus doesn't currently represent a bottleneck in
> performance,
> > > why is it that you don't see really large amounts of memory being put
> onto
> > > the video card, as a way to improve the speed of rendering texture and
> > > drawing for really large screen sizes? Even in the X800XT Platinum,
> ATI
> > > only puts 256MB on the video card.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Will
> > > westes AT earthbroadcast.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

So, it looks like my direction is to go separate PCI Express cards each
driving just one or two monitors at 2560x1600, and anti-aliasing be damned.

Your point about anti-aliasing reaching diminishing returns at such
resolutions is probably true.

--
Will
westes AT earthbroadcast.com


"First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1AfWc.1881$izj1.835@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> If you get around 17 fps at 2048x1536 dual-monitor, 6x FSAA will be a
> slideshow even with a boatload of video RAM. At such high resolutions, you
> also reach a point of diminishing returns with FSAA.
>
> BTW, retail video cards account for less than 5% of overall video card
sales
> (it's why 3dfx died...). Bleeding edge cards accounts for less than
> one-tenth of that, or 0.5%. And price tends to rise disproportionately
with
> lower volume products...
>
> If you want multi-monitor flightsim goodness, just go to Quantum3D.Com.
> Everything is available for immediate delivery, for a price.
>
> --
> "War is the continuation of politics by other means.
> It can therefore be said that politics is war without
> bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

A good compromise, in my opinion, would be for some versions of the graphics
card to have a memory expansion slot on the card. This way the user could
decide how much extra memory they want to put on their graphics card.

T

"CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in
message news:MZednTaUV8hb7LTcRVn-vg@giganews.com...
> I currently play FS2004 on dual monitors running at 2048x1536x32, and I
> manage to get around 17 fps when doing full screen mode with each monitor
> viewing different areas within a virtual cockpit. With one monitor I
get
> around 24 fps. I get this even with add-on terrain that in some areas
is
> as detailed as 9.6m. I'm running dual 2.4GHz CPUs, so nothing special
> there.
>
> I would certainly appreciate being able to do 6x FSAA in both windows at
the
> same time. If ATI is going to bother to support two monitors at all, I
> don't see why they wouldn't offer memory options that allow those two
> monitors to achieve their best possible performance in games.
>
> With ultra-high-end analog monitors like the Viewsonic P817 now going
> regularly for under $300/monitor, there is no way that one can argue the
> audience for two monitor high resolution gaming isn't a potential consumer
> market. The market for just the FS2004 users alone is a consumer
> market.
>
> Maybe the long-term direction the graphics cards manufacturers want to
move
> us is to PCI Express. Supporting multiple high resolution video streams
> with 6x FSAA becomes feasible there on probably as many as four monitors
> concurrently, each supported by a single video card. I just don't
> understand why they wouldn't bother to try enabling two monitors on one
> video card. It seems to me they are not very far away from being able to
> do that technically, and more memory on the card is one of the obstacles.
>
> --
> Will
> westes AT earthbroadcast.com
>
>
> "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uBdWc.684$izj1.549@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > 1. Cost. The difference in price between the 128 MB and 256 MB is quite
> > drastic for high-speed memory. (It was some +$150 for the Radeon 9800Pro
a
> > couple of months ago). Going to 1 GB would've added another $300 to the
> > pricetag and that's assuming higher-density memory doesn't cost more...
> >
> > 2. The games that can overflow 256 MB at 6x FSAA aren't really playable
at
> > 6x FSAA...
> >
> > 3. There's only a handful of sims that are playable on two monitors. The
> > "seam" prevents FPS shooters from being enjoyable.
> >
> > 4. Feel free to purchase the PNY QuadroFX 4400 (based on GF6800U) with
512
> > MB. It was just announced. When PC parts start to rival sports car
> upgrades
> > in cost, though, I'd rather get my entertainment elsewhere...
> >
> > --
> > "War is the continuation of politics by other means.
> > It can therefore be said that politics is war without
> > bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
> >
> >
> > "CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in
> > message news:MLadnXAFz_iwg7TcRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> > > Since the AGP bus doesn't currently represent a bottleneck in
> performance,
> > > why is it that you don't see really large amounts of memory being put
> onto
> > > the video card, as a way to improve the speed of rendering texture and
> > > drawing for really large screen sizes? Even in the X800XT Platinum,
> ATI
> > > only puts 256MB on the video card.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Will
> > > westes AT earthbroadcast.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:41:09 -0700, "CHANGE USERNAME TO westes"
<DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote:

>As gaming becomes more
>immersive I would expect to see two to four monitors become very common
>place.

Why? Having more than one monitor is impracticable for most people. I
doubt more than one monitor will ever be common place.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

In article <MZednTaUV8hb7LTcRVn-vg@giganews.com>,
DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com says...
> I currently play FS2004 on dual monitors running at 2048x1536x32, and I
> manage to get around 17 fps when doing full screen mode with each monitor
> viewing different areas within a virtual cockpit. With one monitor I get
> around 24 fps. I get this even with add-on terrain that in some areas is
> as detailed as 9.6m. I'm running dual 2.4GHz CPUs, so nothing special
> there.

Simulators are more CPU limited than most RPG's, which are mostly eye
candy. You'd get more improvement with a faster computer than a better
card.

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

In article <7ZfWc.3649$D7.713@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
csaweb@ozemail.com.au says...
> A good compromise, in my opinion, would be for some versions of the graphics
> card to have a memory expansion slot on the card. This way the user could
> decide how much extra memory they want to put on their graphics card.

Nothing new. I once had a Matrox Millenium with 2M, and it had
connectors to a a memory daughter card. In my case, I did upgrade it with
a 2M module (expensive in those days.)

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in
message news:MLadnXAFz_iwg7TcRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> Since the AGP bus doesn't currently represent a bottleneck in performance,
> why is it that you don't see really large amounts of memory being put onto
> the video card, as a way to improve the speed of rendering texture and
> drawing for really large screen sizes? Even in the X800XT Platinum, ATI
> only puts 256MB on the video card.

Because if ATI released a 1Gb card now, people could actually buy a card AND
still be happy with it a few years down the line when top end games actually
*need* 1Gb. From a business point of view, it makes sense to improve
performance gradually, as we all know (and it especially pisses off digital
camera buyers, believe me...)

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I think the key here is the GPU. With large amounts of memory holding large
amounts of data, you need the processing power to move it around, and that
just isn't there yet. In a few years with GPU's 3 or 4 more times powerful
than they are now, and games that are almost like interactive movies, then a
gig or more of memory on the graphics card will be very useful.

JK

"Martin Francis" <mcsalty@com.btinternet> wrote in message
news:cgda74$a2h$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> "CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in
> message news:MLadnXAFz_iwg7TcRVn-pg@giganews.com...
>> Since the AGP bus doesn't currently represent a bottleneck in
>> performance,
>> why is it that you don't see really large amounts of memory being put
>> onto
>> the video card, as a way to improve the speed of rendering texture and
>> drawing for really large screen sizes? Even in the X800XT Platinum,
>> ATI
>> only puts 256MB on the video card.
>
> Because if ATI released a 1Gb card now, people could actually buy a card
> AND
> still be happy with it a few years down the line when top end games
> actually
> *need* 1Gb. From a business point of view, it makes sense to improve
> performance gradually, as we all know (and it especially pisses off
> digital
> camera buyers, believe me...)
>
> --
> Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
> "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
> no, and yes...."
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

CHANGE USERNAME TO westes wrote:

> So, it looks like my direction is to go separate PCI Express cards each
> driving just one or two monitors at 2560x1600, and anti-aliasing be
> damned.

When motherboards with multiple PCI-E X16 slots start shipping, which will
won't happen until another design cycle has gone by at Intel (don't believe
the fanboy hype--go to the Intel site and read the datasheets on the
chipsets--none of the ones currently in the works have more than 24 PCI-E
lanes).

> Your point about anti-aliasing reaching diminishing returns at such
> resolutions is probably true.
>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Why don't they allow for the memory to be upgradeable like in the good old
days? It comes with default of 32MB of RAM and then everyone buys a 1GB
chip that they can just keep installing on their new upgraded video card
(until they come up with a new type of RAM)





"CHANGE USERNAME TO westes" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in
message news:MLadnXAFz_iwg7TcRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> Since the AGP bus doesn't currently represent a bottleneck in performance,
> why is it that you don't see really large amounts of memory being put onto
> the video card, as a way to improve the speed of rendering texture and
> drawing for really large screen sizes? Even in the X800XT Platinum, ATI
> only puts 256MB on the video card.
>
> --
> Will
> westes AT earthbroadcast.com
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

CHANGE USERNAME TO westes wrote:
> You see a 7 to 15% performance improvement between 128 MB and 256 MB
> if you are doing 6x FSAA, at least according to Tom's Hardware.
>

The major flaw in that statement is that you are trusting what Tom's
Hardware says. They've been proven to lie through their teeth in their
reviews in the past. There is an enormous group of people worldwide that
would never trust a word that comes out of the pages of THG... myself
included.

Anyway, just increasing memory SIZE won't increase speed. The purpose of
larger video card memory is to fit larger textures into a single frame of a
scene. There is a fine balance between GPU clock speed, memory speed, and
memory size that gives a video card it's performance. Any shortcoming in
any one of these will make a card perform poorly. Just bumping the _amount_
of RAM won't do jack if the GPU can't draw the triangles fast enough to
clear the buffer for the next frame of animation. Think of it this way:
You have a Pentium 266 Celeron, with 64 MB of RAM (PC133 at that!), but you
want to do some distributed computing for SETI@home, Folding@home or
whatever... ok so you just add more RAM, say, 8GB (still PC133, of course,
for system compatibility), and you'll be cranking work units out by the
hundreds DAILY! oh wait, no you won't, because you still have a 266 MHz.
CPU, and your system bus is still only 133 MHz.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Probably because they increased memory to 1 MB, back in 1991, on the
first VLB local Bus cards; previously many cards had only 256K or 512K
of video RAM

*groans*
:)
j/k.....(read the subject)

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:32:08 -0700, "CHANGE USERNAME TO westes"
<DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote:

>Since the AGP bus doesn't currently represent a bottleneck in performance,
>why is it that you don't see really large amounts of memory being put onto
>the video card, as a way to improve the speed of rendering texture and
>drawing for really large screen sizes? Even in the X800XT Platinum, ATI
>only puts 256MB on the video card.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

> Why don't they allow for the memory to be upgradeable like in the good old
> days? It comes with default of 32MB of RAM and then everyone buys a 1GB
> chip that they can just keep installing on their new upgraded video card
> (until they come up with a new type of RAM)

Probably for performance and cost reasons. Video card memory isn't a
dumb slow frame buffer anymore.

What would you expand the card with? Desktop DDR memory is slow by
video card standards. I suppose ATI could come up with a proprietary
memory upgrade package for their cards, but these would no doubt be
expensive. Also, it would add to the cost and complexity of the video
card to make a flexible design that could accept more memory*, not to
mention the added cost and potential reliability and support problems of
the sockets.

And by the time you run out of video memory, you'll probably want a
faster GPU anyway. Even when video cards had expandable memory, it was
usually a better deal for your money to get a new video card anyway.


*Except for, say, 64-bit cards that can be upgraded to 128-bit by adding
another memory bank. Still, you could only double your memory...
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

>>You see a 7 to 15% performance improvement between 128 MB and 256 MB
>>if you are doing 6x FSAA, at least according to Tom's Hardware.
>>
> Anyway, just increasing memory SIZE won't increase speed.
> Just bumping the _amount_ of RAM won't do jack if the GPU can't draw the
> triangles fast enough to clear the buffer for the next frame

That's true, but when you're doing 6x FSAA, you're probably bound by
memory bandwidth, not triangle throughput.

Additional video card RAM can speed things up by reducing the amount of
data that has to travel over the AGP bus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom