Swimmer Posted March 7, 2005 CID Share Posted March 7, 2005 After countless rumors circulating the Internet, ATI made things official with their announcement of the "world's first 512 MByte gaming card." ATI decided to debut this innovative technology at the Texas Gaming Festival LAN party in front of their most loyal of constituencies: hardcore gamers. It was only a development card, with speeds the same as offered by the 256 MB X850XT: 520 MHz for the engine and 540 MHz for the memory. In an interview with the ATI product marketing engineer Jimmy Dinh, he said that doubling the memory was not an easy undertaking: you cannot "just slap more memory modules onto the board." Instead, the company needed to move from a single-rank design to a dual-rank memory architecture. In a single rank design, all the modules are directly connected to the GPU. With a dual rank, the first rank of eight modules is connected to the GPU, while the second rank is connected to the first rank. The issue with a dual-rank design is that there are increased latencies as a result of piggy-backing the second rank off the first. Jimmy stated that ATI was able to "tweak the crap out of the memory controllers" so the second rank had the same latencies as the first rank. He continued to say that if they could not get it to work they would not have debuted the technology. Jimmy concluded by stating that there are plans to implement 512 MByte of GDDR3 onto future cards. Source: http://www.tomshardware.com/game/20050305/ati_512mb_video_card-01.html looks pretty sweet... might want to check it out if you are in the market for the latest and greatest.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REV0LUTI0NIZED Posted March 7, 2005 CID Share Posted March 7, 2005 Damn, it looks beautiful. I just want to see the price tag on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xs1 Posted March 7, 2005 CID Share Posted March 7, 2005 interesting. I remember when i was looking for my PCI video card ( emachines dont have agp slot ) they had a few 512 card's , but they were all like $700+ on newegg x_x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REV0LUTI0NIZED Posted March 7, 2005 CID Share Posted March 7, 2005 Well, thats not too much. Yeah Right!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xs1 Posted March 7, 2005 CID Share Posted March 7, 2005 How bout a 640 MB Video card ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odysseus_____ Posted March 7, 2005 CID Share Posted March 7, 2005 Hmm... looks cool, but for now I'll settle with my good ol' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rotoruda Posted March 7, 2005 CID Share Posted March 7, 2005 $2000 for a video card?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stank_Ho Posted March 7, 2005 CID Share Posted March 7, 2005 Shit I'd have to pack some dry ice in my case to keep that thing from melting my board! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimmer Posted March 8, 2005 Author CID Share Posted March 8, 2005 it is for cad stuff... it isnt built for gaming.. this is the first gaming card.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shug7272 Posted March 8, 2005 CID Share Posted March 8, 2005 Ok my question... who needs that kinda card. Thats just over kill. I mean I like my porn, I open two and three windows at a time of it and my 64mb ATI holds up just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stank_Ho Posted March 8, 2005 CID Share Posted March 8, 2005 I thought my 256mb Radeon would last me awhile longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swimmer Posted March 8, 2005 Author CID Share Posted March 8, 2005 Yeah i have yet to see any benchmarks.. in fact the 128mb 9800 pros out proform the 256mb version.. so it could be interesting.. this happens because of the lag in the memory itself.. So.. The reason that you would need a card with 512mb would be for advanced pixel shading and if you wanted to have all of the goodies turned up... I guess ATI thinks that there is going to be a game launched that will use more than 256mb for the graphics.. other wise you create a bottle neck.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
php Posted March 12, 2005 CID Share Posted March 12, 2005 i have a radeon x300 128mb and thats still plenty to run most games at best quality, maybe the most graphical games at a lower quality to keep the frame rate up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disturbed Posted March 12, 2005 CID Share Posted March 12, 2005 well....ill be damned hehhe, but hey ppl, this means good news for us new cards comming out = lower prices on older cards yeeeeyyy i encourage them to come out with as many video cards they can heheeh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
php Posted March 12, 2005 CID Share Posted March 12, 2005 most definitely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stank_Ho Posted March 12, 2005 CID Share Posted March 12, 2005 Yah, good news except for the few of us that are insatiable and need to have top of the line equipment all the time. This is not good news. Now my 256mb card is insufficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rotoruda Posted March 12, 2005 CID Share Posted March 12, 2005 I'm just hoping my ATI Radeon 9250 256 MB card stays totally sufficient for every and all stuff I may encounter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blako Posted March 12, 2005 CID Share Posted March 12, 2005 Sure you could buy a $300+ video card but can you really tell the difference between 30 frames per sec or 170 fps? X800 XT PE ran at 62 fps on "Battlefield Vietnam" 1600X1200 4x AA / 8x AF X800 XT PE ran at 172 fps on "Battlefield Vietnam" 1024X768 no AA /no AF Infomation from http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-11.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disturbed Posted March 12, 2005 CID Share Posted March 12, 2005 between 30 and 170 ? um yeah.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
php Posted March 12, 2005 CID Share Posted March 12, 2005 what good would 170fps do you? Most monitors can only refresh at about 85Hz at higher resolutions, meaning you wouldn't see anything faster than 85 fps anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.