What do you think will this be the next ideal SPCR Vid Card?

oakdad · Post by **oakdad** » Wed May 11, 2005 8:59 am

Saw this and wanted to hear what you guys thought

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23155

rei · Post by **rei** » Wed May 11, 2005 9:13 am

The X700 is even more a waste with 512MB than with the X800XL!

The X800XL seems to be the fastest passive card out now. Not-silent-but-very-quiet afficionados should probably get the fastest card they can afford and swap the stock heatsink/fan for the Zalman VF700.

Green Shoes · Post by **Green Shoes** » Wed May 11, 2005 9:14 am

Aside from the extra 256 MB of RAM being currently worthless (or possibly even detrimental, see some reviews of the X800 XL 512 around the web), that's an extra memory controller and twice as much ram dumping heat into the case....until games start taking advantage of that much RAM there's no way anyone around here would buy it...most are perfectly happy with the mere 128-megs of RAM on the 6600GT.

sthayashi · Post by **sthayashi** » Wed May 11, 2005 9:46 am

I think whoever proofed that article should be shot. "Gamecube launches X700 with 512 MB part". I thought for a minute that Nintendo was releasing a new platform.

tay · Post by **tay** » Wed May 11, 2005 10:02 am

damn dood the same thing happened to me.

mathias · Post by **mathias** » Wed May 11, 2005 10:47 am

A 6200 with 512 megs of ram? That's just plain retarded. That is, from an engineering standpoint, I'm sure it will sell.

rei · Post by **rei** » Wed May 11, 2005 1:16 pm

i watched 1 of the 2 cohosts on canadian tv computer help show (david chalk talk) answer reader mail and say 'the more vram a card has generally means the faster it is'

uh huh.

512mb 6200 > 128mb 6600gt

mathias · Post by **mathias** » Wed May 11, 2005 2:25 pm

"SHLOWELY BUT SHURELY"

WTF?

"By Computex, most graphics cards will be 512MB as, of course, 512MB is two times bigger than 256MB and folk like to buy big numbers."

This idiot apparently takes it for granted that most people are such idiots.

Looks like this article is so atrocious, it has kept the topic from getting much attention.

For the low end, the good old 9600 seems to be holding up very well, gigabyte apparently has a passive 9600pro. An X600xt shouldn't use significantly more power than a 9600xt, but I don't seem to hear much about it.

There don't seem to be any power consumption tests for the X700 series, or for 6600nongts

Green Shoes · Post by **Green Shoes** » Wed May 11, 2005 2:40 pm

mathias wrote:"SHLOWELY BUT SHURELY"

WTF?

"By Computex, most graphics cards will be 512MB as, of course, 512MB is two times bigger than 256MB and folk like to buy big numbers."

It's possible that they could mean ATI's new r520 core and nVidia's new 70 core, both of which are supposed to have their "official" unveiling at/around Computex. These are the first cards that 512 MB of ram could have any use for at all...the others' architectures are just too old to take advantage of it.

I did the double-take with the "Gamecube" post too....just sad.

StarfishChris · Post by **StarfishChris** » Wed May 11, 2005 3:42 pm

I checked my Gamecube just now and it doesn't look like there are any expansion slots. Maybe Nintendo used some proprietary cards.

mathias wrote:"By Computex, most graphics cards will be 512MB as, of course, 512MB is two times bigger than 256MB and folk like to buy big numbers."

This idiot apparently takes it for granted that most people are such idiots.

I know plenty of idiots who subscribe to bigger is better

though I think he's treating cards with more memory with derision rather than anything else.

crays · Post by **crays** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:20 pm

Green Shoes wrote:Aside from the extra 256 MB of RAM being currently worthless (or possibly even detrimental, see some reviews of the X800 XL 512 around the web), that's an extra memory controller and twice as much ram dumping heat into the case....until games start taking advantage of that much RAM there's no way anyone around here would buy it...most are perfectly happy with the mere 128-megs of RAM on the 6600GT.

I find the 256mb of ram on the XL very useful in games like Everquest2. I'd bet taht the next gen cards will benefit from 512mb. Lord knows that EQ2 has a setting that says requires 256mb, another for 512mb and one that basically say that current PCs can't use this graphic setting yet. At least they planned ahead

Arcticfox · Post by **Arcticfox** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:02 pm

I don't see how they will sell this card. Normally when low/mid-level cards get extra memory they are intended for OEM's. The OEM's pay very little extra to get a card with 512MB of cheap high latancy RAM, and their less techno savvy customers see the higher RAM amount and think it must be better. The problem with this card is that it uses a heatpipe for cooling, which most OEM's will see as an unnecessary expense.

wim · Post by **wim** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:54 pm

Looks like this article is so atrocious, it has kept the topic from getting much attention.

heh..well..i got distracted by this link. hot dingity dang!

perplex · Post by **perplex** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 2:03 am

512? jesus christ.. i'm planning on buying Matrox G550 with 32

my current card from nearly 5 years ago has 64MB .. geforce 2 ultra

nici · Post by **nici** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:42 am

Unneccesary.. But hardly surprising is it? Last generation cards were released as 256Mb versions with slower memory, and now 256 is the standard for higher-end cards. I will be surprised if 512Mb isnt the standard in a year or so.

Btw, most Fujitsu-Siemens and HP computers that are marketed here, from 600€ to 1200€, use a GF6600 256Mb.. Including those that are marketed as "gaming PCs", oh well, people buy them so they will probably be shipped with 6600 512Mb cards in few months as faster cards are released..

Tzupy · Post by **Tzupy** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 9:58 am

Good games are usually designed with several texture detail levels. Well, there is also the geometry, and normal maps, displacement maps that are difficult to make with different detail levels, but textures take the most graphics memory. As a player, you can easily get good results with lower texture detail is the game is designed for maximum quality at 512MB but you have only 256MB.

Green Shoes · Post by **Green Shoes** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 7:17 am

Once game designers start designing 512MB maps then we'll need that much video memory....but the only game currently that's rumored to need that much is Doom 3, and there are people that are disputing that claim (since Id made it before the game was even released). You're all right, in a couple of years every game released will need that much....but now is not the time. Let the early adopters pay the price premium for the crappier product

jack_aubrey · Post by **jack_aubrey** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:21 pm

Green Shoes wrote:Aside from the extra 256 MB of RAM being currently worthless

Large video memory is actually very helpful for roaming through, for example, volumetric datasets (MRI/CT scans, say), though granted that's something very few buyers of consumer-level graphics cards actually do today. There are also applications in vis-sim with very high fidelity databases.

pony-tail · Post by **pony-tail** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:48 am

On the extreme high end cards it gives a noticeable improvement in some benchmarks - 3D mark 05 in particular so it does have an effect but as for how much it improves frame rates in current games I do not believe it to be of any signifigance.