1Gb memory in 7900GTX

Legless · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:17

Man 1Gb of onboard ram sounds crazy, but i'm sure many ppl will get them on here, just can't see any reason though for the extra ram, what games will utilise it?

Vegeta · 26 Feb 2006 at 22:25

Some will argue it will be used, and they will argue because they're lieing!

Andydewar · 27 Feb 2006 at 00:53

Vegeta said:
Some will argue it will be used, and they will argue because they're lieing!

And some will say its pointless, cause they know that they cant afford it.....

Seriously though, didn't Tim Sweeney say something about UT2007 needing a 1Gb card to run at full detail. Think it was down to the size of the maps and texture complexity.

Look at the boost that 512Mb cards seem to be getting in COD2. As texture sizes in the latest games get bigger, the more framebuffer the better.

Explicit · 27 Feb 2006 at 01:11

Ok, now this is getting INSANE...1GB...damn!

PinkPig · 27 Feb 2006 at 01:29

Is there actually a valid technical reason for these things always having to double? Why has no one ever planned a graphics card with 768 MB VRAM, for instance?

BrynS · 27 Feb 2006 at 02:36

PinkPig said:
Is there actually a valid technical reason for these things always having to double? Why has no one ever planned a graphics card with 768 MB VRAM, for instance?

Yes, there is a correlation between the memory bus width and configuration (size):

Beyond3D feature: Graphics IHV's at Cebit 2005 said:
...XGI's product after XG47 will be another 130nm based part, the XG45. XG45's performance is aimed more towards ATI's X700 series and NVIDIA's 6600's and will feature Shader Model 3.0 capabilities. The memory bus is somewhat unusual in that it can be utilised in 96-bit, 128-bit or 192-bit widths. Supporting these unusual bus widths also gives rise to some local memory configurations that haven't been seen before, such as 96MB and 192MB configurations.

Cheers,

BrynS

neologan · 27 Feb 2006 at 03:09

I don't think the 1Gb card will come at launch, but I think some card manufacturers are doing something that brings a 1GB part to the table.

Don't spread this around but you might hear of GTX2 sometime soon....

ACESHIGH · 27 Feb 2006 at 03:41

I agree, the 1024MB cards are likely the dual GPU cards, so really like having crossfire X1900XTX or SLI 7800GTX512MB cards.

D.P. · 27 Feb 2006 at 08:19

Andydewar said:
And some will say its pointless, cause they know that they cant afford it.....

Seriously though, didn't Tim Sweeney say something about UT2007 needing a 1Gb card to run at full detail. Think it was down to the size of the maps and texture complexity.

Look at the boost that 512Mb cards seem to be getting in COD2. As texture sizes in the latest games get bigger, the more framebuffer the better.

Yep, U3E needs 1gb board to run best.

Next Carmack engine will be looking to use over 2 gb possbly, for highest settings.

G.O.A.T · 27 Feb 2006 at 09:31

What's this big fuss? The more memory the better. I'm getting flashbacks to the Voodoo 2 8mb vs. 12mb debate.

"12mb!! that's just more memory than there is in *** world, it'll never get used"

Vegeta · 27 Feb 2006 at 12:59

Andydewar said:
And some will say its pointless, cause they know that they cant afford it.....

I can afford it, just dont want to.

Andydewar · 27 Feb 2006 at 14:12

Vegeta said:
I can afford it, just dont want to.

Sorry, didnt mean to direct that remark at you specifically. Should have added a comment to that effect.

Kyo · 27 Feb 2006 at 15:10

Definitely think that the amount of onboard memory is excessive consdering it probably not even use half the time depending on your settings and resolution. From what i read 512mb is hardly used on the lower res settings anyway?.

neologan · 27 Feb 2006 at 15:25

But does anyone consider SLI to be excessive? I think we can all agree that SLI and Crossfire fill a niche, and that there are people out there with 30" monitors who need that sort of GPU power to get the best from them.

1GB on a card is no different from this example, in my opinion.

MoNkeE · 27 Feb 2006 at 16:03

Kyo said:
Definitely think that the amount of onboard memory is excessive consdering it probably not even use half the time depending on your settings and resolution. From what i read 512mb is hardly used on the lower res settings anyway?.

And who buys a 512mb card to run on low detail?

-RaZ

Jack Bauer · 27 Feb 2006 at 16:13

Personally I dont think there is anything wrong with it ( needed or not ). If I had money lieing around I would get them SLI just for the fun of messing around with the hardware and overclockering it. The FX 60 springs to mind. That is a redicules purchase offering very little more than processors a lot cheaper, having said that if i could afford it I would get one....

Kyo · 27 Feb 2006 at 16:53

MoNkeE said:
And who buys a 512mb card to run on low detail?

-RaZ

Well believe it or not there all sorts out there. Who said anything about low details. GFX configuration can account fo AA + AF as well, my point is (if you missed it) was with the same card but less onboard memory would probably run pretty much the same unless your running at some ridiculous res settings etc with the current games out.

man_from_uncle · 27 Feb 2006 at 19:49

Gosh, what an interesting direction we are moving in. A whole gig on one card? If it is dual and in actuallity is 2 lots of 512 that run in a tight packaged SLi then fair enough, that's only really a 512mb graphics solution (if my understanding of SLi is correct), but if it is the full 1 gig on one card......oh baby.

I hate myself for feeling this and I don't want to stand in the way of progress, but I don't really like this market if it's pushing up hardware potential so quickly that games needlessly force themselve to try and exploit it and both fail in making a good game and/or a well optimised game. Look at FEAR for example, it's a great looking game and fun to play, but dear me you need the hardware to make it run well and if you built your 'monster' rig more than 18 months ago you will pretty much have to live with sub par settings at medium/low resolutions that look worse than Half-Life 2 for example (which was a very well optimised game). I think that the gaming market needs to catch up in terms of optimisation before we give them more room for expansion that they can't properly use. If there were no badly optimised games on the market then fair enough, keep giving the developers more scope for creativity by letting their hardware limit increase. As it stands though, I don't think it's a good thing for the end user that the limit keeps rising; it just means higher costs and worse games.

D.P. · 27 Feb 2006 at 21:37

that's only really a 512mb graphics solution (if my understanding of SLi is correct)

You are correct.

D.P. · 27 Feb 2006 at 21:41

I do think these 1Gb references are for duo boards coming out from Nvidia.

but we wont be that far away from having 1Gb. boards
As has been mentioned, Tim Sweeney mentioned that UE3 engine really needs 1Gb for best performance- thats their target aim for the high end. Other engines that are even more advanced than UE3 will no doubt require more. John Carmakcs engine has been rumoured that it would really need 2 GB for optimal performance at the highest settings- but this could be some time away. His next engine is concentrating on textures of massive reolution, never repeating anywhere, all unique.

CEO of Nvidia has mentioned that to do proper HDR + AA you will reqire in excess of 2GB of frambuffer, excluding any other texture usage. You can work these numbers out by multiplying the output resolution by the number of fragmments per pixel for each buffer in the final output.