Slashdot Mirror


AMD-ATI Ships Radeon 2900 XT With 1GB Memory

MojoKid writes "Prior to AMD-ATI's Radeon HD 2000 series introduction, rumors circulated regarding an ultra-high clocked ATI R600-based card, that featured a large 1GB frame buffer. Some even went so far as to say the GPU would be clocked near 1GHz. When the R600 arrived in the form of the Radeon HD 2900 XT, it was outfitted with 'only' 512MB of frame buffer memory and its GPU and memory clock speeds didn't come close to the numbers in those early rumors. Some of AMD's partners, however, have since decided to introduce R600-based products that do feature 1GB frame buffers, like the Diamond Viper HD 2900 XT 1GB in both single-card and CrossFire configurations. At 2GHz DDR, the memory on the card is also clocked higher than AMD's reference designs but the GPU remains clocked at 742MHz"

132 comments

  1. But... by gQuigs · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does it run (on) Linux yet?

    1. Re:But... by dascritch · · Score: 5, Funny

      A lit'l more RAM and it can run Windows Vista. By itself.

      --
      (Sorry my bad French) Je fais parler les Guignols de l'Info. Le pied, quoi.
    2. Re:But... by hitmark · · Score: 4, Funny

      but dont expect it to run any office software at the same time...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    3. Re:But... by tux_deamon · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know you're kidding, but as a matter of fact, it is supported under Linux by a couple different drivers.

      A good review of the 2900 XT under LinuxIn fact, you have options.

      Using the proprietary driver

      Using the open source driver

    4. Re:But... by postmortem · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      None yet e'er drank a honey'd draught Unnmixed with cup of bitter gall, And cup of gall for honey equally doth call, That so, the mixture one may easier drink. Beg Ivan-beg of ancestry heroic, Like tawny lion fought against the Turks, On every side, and deep in gory woods: Half of his lands the Turks did take from him, The country delug'd was with blood, These Moslems slew his doughty brother, - Ferocious dragon, Urosh Voivoda! - On tune broad fields of Tchèmovo. Ivan his only brother mourn'd. Mourn'd him more, - the Voivoda Urosh; - Than were he mourning both his sons; Mourn'd him more, the Voivoda Urosh, Than he could mourn a whole lost land; Mourn'd him more, the Voivoda Urosh, Than he could mourn the loss of both his eyes; Not dearer they to him than brother Urosh. Full many a time and oft the hero may Excite high heaven unto mighty laughter! Ivan with cup on high vow'd direful vengeance, Drinking the toast with consecrated wine. He lets his white hair fall upon his shoulder's. His white beard curling down unto his waist; With his old hands he grasps his sword and lance; Blood-sprinkled both his weapons and his arms, At every step he fells a Turkish foe; The old man bounds as were he nimble youth! O dear my Lord, it sure must be a dream, That on this wise an aged man can leap! Good fortune past returns to him again: At Karoutché upon Tsrmnitsa's boundary, Of whole band of fifteen thousand Turks, Not one of them escap'd alive; Their marble tombs, which men still see, Attest the glory of Prince Tsrnoyevitch: God grant mercy to the soul of Urosh. Wondrous offerings made men to his memory!

    5. Re:But... by kshade · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, you can use it to speed up swapping a little: http://gentoo-wiki.com/TIP_Use_memory_on_video_card_as_swap

    6. Re:But... by UnderDark · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why would I want a card whose only purpose in life is make lots of calculations quickly and accurately run MS Office Excel 2007?

    7. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "little" you meant "add a second graphics card using SLI"...

    8. Re:But... by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I bought a vista laptop with only 512 MB of ram. It booted, quite slowly, but it worked. Anyway, I promptly installed Mandriva and it runs very smoothly. Vista is still installed though. It runs like a pig towing a tractor.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    9. Re:But... by Tycho · · Score: 1

      Be careful what you wish for. This ATI FireGL card has 2GB of memory:
      http://ati.amd.com/products/fireglv8650/index.html

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
    10. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ATI does have a driver available for the 2900 cards (with some warnings about it not being ready for prime-time yet)... but when I tried it out, things that blit (e.g. smooth scrolling in the gnome timezone picker, web browsers, etc) cause the system to crash.

  2. also, more vespene gas by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

    When the R600 arrived in the form of the Radeon HD 2900 XT, it was outfitted with 'only' 512MB of frame buffer memory and its GPU and memory clock speeds didn't come close to the numbers in those early rumors.

    Well, that's because when they tried to build the 1GB units, a loud voice was heard saying "We require more minerals", and production was blocked.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:also, more vespene gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent frickin hilarious

    2. Re:also, more vespene gas by weirdcrashingnoises · · Score: 1

      thank YOU parent, for that late-night mt. dew all over my computer screen!

      --
      sigs... don't talk to me about sigs....
    3. Re:also, more vespene gas by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I don't get the joke?

    4. Re:also, more vespene gas by jagdish · · Score: 2, Informative
    5. Re:also, more vespene gas by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Do get the joke you require additional vespene gas.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    6. Re:also, more vespene gas by ijakings · · Score: 0

      You sir, are the single most epic person ive ever seen.

  3. Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by Chas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These cards are ridiculous. ESPECIALLY in Crossfire installs.

    Wow! Now that 4GB of main system memory I installed has been pared back down to a more manageable 2GB!

    WHEE!

    Until 64-bit becomes more mainstream, cards like this will only become more and more detrimental to the systems they're installed in.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by Graphic_Content · · Score: 1

      So get the 64-bit Windows XP/Vista OS. Then you won't "lose" your precious "minerals".

    2. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      These cards are ridiculous. ESPECIALLY in Crossfire installs.

      You mean like doubly so? Like the point that the money spent on the doubling the money is almost completely wasted, the money spent on doubling the graphics chips is almost completely wasted?

    3. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I mean "doubling the memory". Stupid sleepiness.

    4. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      When did the Orz start posting on slashdot?

    5. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by Doppler00 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, this is why I'm waiting before upgrading my computer. I need to see better 64 bit support in the future. I always plan on doubling everything at next major upgrade. From 2GB -> 4GB, 2 cores -> 4 cores. Until there is an operating system and application support though, I don't think I'm going to go there.

    6. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Note: Wasn't talking about for ME. I'm already running 64-bit, as I've chosen hardware that's fairly well supported driver-wise.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    7. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by Chas · · Score: 1

      No. I mean that since this memory has to be mapped within a 32-bit address space, you wind up wasting space that could be better allocated to system memory.

      Sure, for anything that remains strictly on the graphics card, it's great. But for anything else (functions besides raw graphics in a game (like AI) or for non-gaming application), stealing that memory allocation space degrades overall system performance.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    8. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Right because Linux hasn't been 64bit and running on SMP systems for years...

      Oh wait. You meant Windows. Sorry, I do apologize ... Well, you'll have to wait the traditional 3 year Microsoft lag behind the state of the art.

      --
      Deleted
    9. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by Chas · · Score: 1

      With multi-core support, I don't think that's really going to change. You're not necessarily going to see a huge "performance boost" from massively parallel processing.

      However, you'll still have the luxury of running multiple processor intensive apps without bringing the whole system to a standstill.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    10. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by Lorkki · · Score: 1

      What are the specific problems with OS and application support you're having? Windows may be an issue if you still need applications with 16-bit components or if you have bad luck with driver support. In Linux there's trouble with closed-source browser plugins, which can be partly alleviated with nspluginwrapper, although Java 6 can still be a pain. Other than that, the support is about as good as it can be expected to get, and I've been running the AMD64 builds of both Ubuntu and XP on my desktop since when I first got a machine with support for it in 2005.

    11. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always plan on doubling everything at next major upgrade.

      Exactly. That's why I'm holding out for 128 bit CPUs for my next upgrade.

    12. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when does linux support any high-end graphics card?

      Granted, this is not direct failing of Linux itself, but still. I really don't see how Linux is an option for gamers, wine/cadega notwithstanding.

      (Posting as AC as I will almost certainly be moderated into oblivion.)

    13. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by Spikeles · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Who are you? You are not Orz! We are Orz! Orz are happy *people energy* from the outside. Can you come together with Orz for *parties*?" - The Orz, Star Control II

      --
      I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
    14. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      So has Windows - the 64 bit build of Win XP was released a couple of years ago.

      The problem isn't the OS, it's the hardware support. In my case, USB wi-fi dongles; none of the ones I have kicking about the place have driver support from the manufacturer (thanks for that Netgear!) and I don't fancy trailing cat5 cabling through my house again.

      And yes, Linux is great, and yes it was my primary desktop OS for a couple of years, but it simply doesn't support all the software I want to run (and yes, that includes games, and no I don't fancy hoping that WINE will run something I've just shelled out cold, hard cash for)

    15. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I always plan on doubling everything at next major upgrade.

      Exactly. That's why I'm holding out for 128 bit CPUs for my next upgrade.


      I'm holding out for 65 bit CPU's for my next upgrade.

    16. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by Schemat1c · · Score: 3, Funny

      Note: Wasn't talking about for ME. I'm already running 64-bit, as I've chosen hardware that's fairly well supported driver-wise. Sorry but even 64-bit isn't going to help ME run any better.
      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    17. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Lies! Windows ME runs exactly as designed!

      Too bad it was designed by left-handed monkeys on crack.

    18. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by UnderDark · · Score: 1

      I am left-handed you insensitive clod!

    19. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 1

      Linux has support for almost every ATi and NVIDIA GPU, including the NV 8800 and ATi 2900 series. You can look at NVIDIA's website and AMD's ATi website for the drivers. The ATi R600 support is new, but Linux has supported high-end graphics cards for some time.

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
    20. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, left hand is always right!

    21. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I missing something? How does installing a graphics card with 2 GB of RAM mean you can only address 2 GB of system memory? By that logic, wouldn't just the 1 card in a non-Crossfire install mean you only have 3 GB of the 4 available? Is this some kind of Crossfire weirdness?

    22. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by mzs · · Score: 1

      If that is true it is bad and it is simply a limitation of Windows. For a long time x86 has offered PAE (Physical Address Extension) which gives 36 address lines. In fact PAE is also used for 2M page size which would be useful to use for a frame buffer. You map a reasonable window for frame buffer, another sliding window for textures, and a small window for CSRs for each card and still have plenty of VA space left over.

      On the PPC side since the 745x at least there has been support for Extended Addressing (HID0[XAEN]) which gives 36 bit addresses. In fact it is much simpler as the PHB often has support to automatically remap for you too.

    23. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by id · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sweet, then he can play all both of the Linux games that need that performance.

    24. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      Seriously. What is with the lack of uptake on 64-bit? I mean, do they even sell mainstream machines with only 32-bit processors? (I really don't know.) It's been out for, let's see, over 4 YEARS.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    25. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 2, Funny

      YES ! Finally Tux Racer in all it's full accelerated glory !

      --
      This package Does Not Contain a Winner
    26. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by jlarocco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is where open source trumps closed source, hands down.

      In the majority of cases, having an open source 32-bit driver, almost automatically implies having a 64-bit driver. It's just a recompile. Yes, a lot of the time there will be bugs, but since developers are usually on "higher end" 64-bit systems, those bugs are usually fixed quickly.

      I'm running 64-bit Debian, and have never had a problem with drivers. My video card, sound card, firewire card, USB devices, network cards and printer all work perfectly. Much better than they would under 64-bit Windows. Same thing with software: if it's available for 32-bit Debian, it's most likely available for 64-bit Debian.

      Hardware manufacturers have no motivation at all to release 64-bit drivers for anything but the newest hardware. If you want 64-bit drivers, you pay for a new piece of hardware, or you're screwed.

      By all means, use whatever OS you like. But don't try telling people there's a 64-bit driver problem on Linux. The 64-bit Linux world is in *much* better shape than Windows in that respect.

    27. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by ynososiduts · · Score: 1

      My ULV Core Duo in my ultra portable doesn't have 64 bit support. It's only a year old.

      --
      622677120
    28. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by desenz · · Score: 1

      heh. That was funny. :-P

    29. Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream.. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Seriously. What is with the lack of uptake on 64-bit?

      Severe lack of motivation from the majority of consumers to whom it offers no benefits (and, due to frequently buggy and/or nonexistant hardware and/or drivers, numerous disadvantages).

  4. UEI++ by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmmm This might mod my Vista User Experience Index up to 3.0

    --
    The game.
    1. Re:UEI++ by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exactly how is this trolling? I got a new video card yesterday and it boosted my UEI from 1 to 2. Imagine my disappointment. I learned my lesson: say something remotely negative about Vista on /. and get down modded.

      --
      The game.
  5. Finally some effects! by The-Pheon · · Score: 4, Funny

    With this new hardware, will be able to run vim with some colors for syntax highlighting? :)

    1. Re:Finally some effects! by chuckymonkey · · Score: 1

      It's not vim you have to worry about, it's emacs.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
    2. Re:Finally some effects! by callinyouin · · Score: 1

      I wasn't going to go into the comments for this one due to the topic, but I'm glad I did. For some reason this made me laugh, but not because I use vim....because I don't.

    3. Re:Finally some effects! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With this much memory and processing power, this will be the graphics card that will finally be able to run Emacs.

  6. Useless! by ynososiduts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless you are running quad 32" screens at some insane resolution, there is no need for 1 GB of frame buffer RAM. I think this is more for the "OMG MI VIF CARD HAZ 1 GIGGBYTES OF MEMORYIES!11!" type.

    --
    622677120
    1. Re:Useless! by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 2, Informative

      I take it you've never gamed at very high resolutions with ALL the eyecandy turned on.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    2. Re:Useless! by ynososiduts · · Score: 2, Informative

      My 8800 GTS with 320 MB runs all games fine at 1680x1050 with max settings. That's pretty much one third of one gigabyte. I seriously doubt you need one, let alone two, gigabytes of video RAM.

      --
      622677120
    3. Re:Useless! by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not just for frame buffering. That memory is also used to store texture maps, Z-buffers, stencil buffers, etc. Basically, Almost all of it is used for 3D games/applications. If all you needed was a 2D card, you could get away with just 64MB of on-board RAM.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Useless! by ynososiduts · · Score: 1

      But see, there is no need for 1 GB of RAM for modern gaming. It's useless unless you are running games at big resolutions. Most people I've seen don't go any higher then 1600x1200.

      --
      622677120
    5. Re:Useless! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You do realize that texture size is completely independent of screen resolution right? And that you possibly have hundreds of textures loaded at once? And they can't be stored compressed because decompression would take too long?

      Basically, other than the framebuffer for what's actually displayed on screen none of the graphics card memory is depended on screen resolution.

      Anyway, this card isn't useful *now*. That's because video game producers target the cards that are widely available. 2 years from now you're going to need *at least* 1GB to run games at their max settings.

    6. Re:Useless! by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Maybe in a direct x 8.1 rendering path. No way youre getting consistant 80+ fps playing tf2 or other directx 10 capable games.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    7. Re:Useless! by MikShapi · · Score: 2, Informative

      I second that. I run an 8800GTS/320 on a triple 17'' 1280x1024 setup (using a matrox triplehead2go digital to split the DVI signal in 3). The card pushes out 3840x1024, which amounts to about 4MP, and it's been happy so far in Gothic, Oblivion, S.T.A.L.K.E.R and a bunch of other titles, giving very reasonable frame rates with either all or practically all the graphics bells and whistles turned on.

      Memory doesn't make a card faster, except on REALLY insane resolutions (way higher than 4MP I suspect) when you really need all those textures close at hand, and what with PCIe bus being nowhere near saturated, putting said textures closer, latency-wise, to the plate is really more than its made out to be. Ton-of-memory-cards are just a tax on people who don't understand what the fuck really matters in their system. Sorta like uber-expensive-RAM which gives an entire 2% improvement over what el-cheapo brandless stuff does.

      What *does* a fast card make, at least as of 8th generation GF's which have many parallel stream processors, is a LOT of processors. The jump from 32 in the mid-range cards, to 96 or 128 in the high-end ones, is what makes these cards kick royal ass.

      --
      -
    8. Re:Useless! by mikkelm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're going to have to spill the beans on how you manage to run S.T.A.L.K.E.R. in a resolution like that, and how you manage to do it on that kind of hardware.

      With an 8800GTS/320, myself, and most all review sites, struggle to stay above 60FPS in 1024x768 at times with all the eyecandy on.

    9. Re:Useless! by billcopc · · Score: 1

      That's funny, because I was just contemplating replacing my 320mb with a 640 because I can make this card chug pretty hard in certain recent games. Mind you, I like my 16x AA+AF so I'm probably taxing it harder than the more reasonable folks out there, but there is definitely a point to having more video ram.

      We've had 256mb cards for a few years now for "normal" resolutions like 1024x768 and 1280x1024... but that's not hardcore anymore. Hardcore is SLI GTX'es (or HD2900s) driving a 30" Dell at 2560x1600. We now have games that have the rendering chops to look awesome at that rez, whereas the old stuff would be showing its blocky flaws and jumping polys.

      Some folks blow $5k on a plasma tv, I prefer to blow mine on a killer PC :) Same diff.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    10. Re:Useless! by Poromenos1 · · Score: 1

      I have the same card and res as the GP and TF2 gets 80ish fps, with spikes up to 100.

      --
      Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
    11. Re:Useless! by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Looking at the benchmarks, there is no difference between the 512MB version of the 2900 XT and this new 1GB version. Infact, most of the benchmarks show the 1GB version performing slightly worse than the 512MB version for some reason...

      When I bought my 1900 XT several months ago, I decided to get the cheaper 256MB version instead of the 512MB version because benchmarks showed there wasn't even a 5% difference in frame rates between the two cards. I play all my games at 1680x1050 with 4x AA and 8x AF, with the highest possible in-game detail settings and everything runs great. I'm not talking about really old games either, I'm talking about Bioshock, Team Fortress 2, etc..

      The only case I've seen where the 512MB version of the 1900XT actually performs better than the 256MB version is when using the Folding@home GPU client.

    12. Re:Useless! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There might not be that many, but there are games that need 1GB VRAM. Flight Simulator X for example runs like shit even on todays high end systems. It will actually make use of 4gb of system ram and 1gb of video ram.

    13. Re:Useless! by Sergeant+Pepper · · Score: 0

      Someone has obviously never tried to run Oblivion with Qarl's Texture Pack (note the two gigabyte download size).

    14. Re:Useless! by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      To quote myself, I said "giving very reasonable frame rates with either all or practically all the graphics bells and whistles turned on".
      STALKER had to have one of the heaviest GPU resource consuming options bumped to keep frame-rates in the 20-30 range (which is what I consider playable for single-player games, and where I prefer eyecandy to the frames. multiplayer would go the other way)
      STALKER also displayed some warping on the side screens, showing it was not designed nor QA'd for unconventionally wide resolutions, which in this day and age is a shame.

      --
      -
    15. Re:Useless! by Craig+Davison · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod parent up. 'Framebuffer'? The article submitter's brain is stuck in about 1995.

    16. Re:Useless! by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      Actually, most modern cards can use certain compressed texture formats natively without decompressing them. I know the Xbox 360 can do that and its graphics hardware is 2 years old.

    17. Re:Useless! by dizzydogg · · Score: 1

      All modern cards are capable of processing compressed textures without having to decompress them. They actualy result in both less memory usage and FASTER processing, at a slight cost of image quality (minor compression artefacts at the higher compression levels)

    18. Re:Useless! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      They actualy result in both less memory usage and FASTER processing


      Less memory utilization, sure. But, faster processing?

      Technically, processing of any data that's compressed will require more processing cycles. Perhaps you mean more "efficient". In other words, you will get faster rendering if all your textures reside in the on-board memory. If those textures were decompressed, you risk having them swapped in and out of memory across the AGP, PCIE bus which in turn causes a rendering bottleneck. That is of course assuming those uncompressed textures are very large.
      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  7. Useful for 3D animation work. by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sounds useful for 3D animation work, where you need all that memory for textures. Remember, by the time players see a game, the textures have been "optimized"; stored at the minimum resolution that will do the job, and possibly with level of detail processing in the game engine. Developers and artists need to work with that data in its original, high-resolution form.

    1. Re:Useful for 3D animation work. by Runefox · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah... The FireGL has been doing that for several years. In fact, they have a 2GB version now, the V8650. Don't try it with games, though. Not going to work so well.

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
  8. Ahh... by xx01dk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Question. Where are the ships? I wanted to read about video cards and ships. This article only half-delivers.

    --
    There is simply too much glass..
    1. Re:Ahh... by xx01dk · · Score: 1

      ...just pokin' fun atcha shiny :)

      Anyhow I just read the review in the newest CPU and they gave it what could best be described as a "meh". Give it a few more iterations and then we might have a respectable competitor to the current top-shelf Nvidia offering, but of course by then there will be something better out...

      --
      There is simply too much glass..
  9. "Framebuffer memory" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    XBox 360 has quarter a gig of "framebuffer memory". So this is really not a big deal, since you really want a good card for next-gen development.

    1. Re:"Framebuffer memory" by Chas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's great. No. Really!

      I'm not talking about an XBox. I'm talking about a PC.

      An XBox has half a gig of memory, half of which is dedicated to graphics at a relatively low-res output.

      I'm talking about a gaming PC with 2+GB of RAM in it and how graphics cards with multiple gigs of memory are detrimental to overall system performance (including gaming) in a 32-bit memory map.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    2. Re:"Framebuffer memory" by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Funny

      640p is enough for anyone.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:"Framebuffer memory" by Chas · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      If I hadn't started this sub-thread, I'd have modded that up for funny. ;-)

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    4. Re:"Framebuffer memory" by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

      Both the XBox and the 360 have a unified memory architecture. That means everything draws from the same pool of RAM. The PS3 has its 512MB split in half between system and video memory.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
  10. Frame buffer? You mean video ram? by chrisl456 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Umm, not to sound like a tech jargon-nazi, but "frame buffer" to me has always meant just the part of video ram that "mirrors" what you see on screen. A 1GB frame buffer would give you 16384x16384x32bit color, so unless you're doing some kind of huge multi-screen setup, 1GB of frame buffer is a bit overkill. ;)

    --
    -chris
    1. Re:Frame buffer? You mean video ram? by aliquis · · Score: 5, Funny

      And here he where trying to be cool using new words he had seen, and you ruined it all :(

    2. Re:Frame buffer? You mean video ram? by StarReaver · · Score: 0

      Multi-monitor? I'll fit that resolution on my single 17" CRT monitor! ...I just won't be able to see anything.

  11. What is the point for most users? by polyex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I understand if you were doing research of any sort that would exploit this hardware - assuming you use ALL of it or can write the code to do so - the better bandwidth you have, the faster the results etc. I understand hardware like this being useful in this regard. I also understand it from the perspective of a software developer who may be developing with this hardware for a future product that will be released in a year or so, and this sort of hardware will be more standard at that time and affordable. But I am sort of baffled by people who spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars for something that they will not use the bandwidth for until next year or later and then the thing will be down in price anyway. Its like buying terabytes of drive space, but then only filling the drive up after a year or two. I am sure that people are thinking that they actually use this stuff fully NOW, but I have to wonder if most of it is to play games with a slightly better resolution but a "lesser" card could have solved that immediate problem. Personally I think its silly to spend so much to play a $60 game, but I understand that it is a hobby and I am not necessarily criticizing that particular form of madness. I guess I am asking if folks have a practical and immediate need for this with software that is out today and that they personally use every day. I know scalability is built into most games and things, but that seems to be arrow relative to the difference in price between this sort of hardware and what is commonly available outside of specialized apps that demonstrably improve when given more powerful hardware now.

    1. Re:What is the point for most users? by BarneyL · · Score: 1

      But I am sort of baffled by people who spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars for something that they will not use the bandwidth for until next year or later and then the thing will be down in price anyway.
      At the extreme end of the scale it is bad value. However if you do need a new graphics card it often works out better to go towards the high end. I'd rather spend $300 on one card that keeps up with the latest games for two years than $180 get a mid range card that will need to be updated with another $180 card in a year's time.
  12. That could be viewed as a serious question by MSRedfox · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hopefully, it will run well under Linux in the near future given AMD's recent actions. As was covered previously on here, AMD has already release quite a bit of detail to improve Linux support. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/24/053252

  13. Quad 32" screens at 1600x1200 fits in 32Mb by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Informative

    Do the math. You don't need anywhere near 1Gb for that.

    What you *do* need it for is texture and vertex data, but even then games aren't really going to use it - they're designed for current hardware.

    Nope, the only people who'll buy this are ignorants with too much money*.

    - Not that there's any shortage of those.

    [*] ...and medical people who like to look at 3D textures from MRI scans - they can never get enough video memory. 1Gb is only enough for a single 512x512x512 texture.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Quad 32" screens at 1600x1200 fits in 32Mb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Triple buffering, HDRI, FSAA, deferred rendering and whatnot might raise the memory requirements somewhat from x*y*4. Plus if you think 1600x1200 is insane resolution for a 30" display (32 is probably a thinko) you haven't been following.

    2. Re:Quad 32" screens at 1600x1200 fits in 32Mb by ynososiduts · · Score: 1

      You just proved my point. I was saying that most people only go as high as 1600x1200. I wasn't saying that it is only needed for people that run at 1600x1200.

      --
      622677120
  14. Re:Story on Slashdot with comments, Posted. by Demablogia · · Score: 1

    Maivi

  15. This is probably redundant but.. by Chas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The memory on a video card is used for more than just simple frame buffering.

    Notice how some of the newer games see less performance degradation on some of the 640MB nVidia cards than equivallently clocked 320MB versions of the same card.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  16. Disk cache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When most of that memory is unused (when you're not playing a game), I wonder if it were possible to use that as disk cache?

    1. Re:Disk cache by raxx7 · · Score: 1

      Under Linux, it's possible to use it as ramdisk but you need to start your system without 3D acceleration I think.

  17. Eventually by LM741N · · Score: 1

    The mobo will be a giant video card and the cpu will reside in a board on one of the slots.

  18. Possible to be used as system RAM? by i.of.the.storm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was just wondering, since before games often used system RAM when the graphics RAM was full, do any of you think it would be possible to go the opposite way, i.e. use gfx ram as system ram? It's a lot faster, and when you're just sitting there outside of a game it's not doing anything. Ultra-fast system cache ftw? Or am I just crazy? Is PCI-e too slow for that kind of stuff? Maybe with Vista's new driver model that allows GPU virtualization something like this could become true, but I really have no idea of the technical details involved in doing something of this nature,

    --
    All your base are belong to Wii.
    1. Re:Possible to be used as system RAM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a lot faster

      Probably a lot less reliable, too. Not easy to notice bit errors in video ram, but very easy to notice bit errors in your system RAM.

    2. Re:Possible to be used as system RAM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could do this on an Amiga. I mapped three megs of RAM from my S3 Virge card as system RAM. It was slow, and the system put it at the end of the list of RAM to be allocated, but it worked.

    3. Re:Possible to be used as system RAM? by cyanid3 · · Score: 1

      Atleast in Linux, you can use the memory as swap or a ramdisk.
      Gentoo guide

      --
      loldongs dongslol
    4. Re:Possible to be used as system RAM? by brian.gunderson · · Score: 1

      Not easy to notice bit errors in video ram The pixels turn... Blue???
      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    5. Re:Possible to be used as system RAM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I checked, Linux can place its swap filesystem on a video card, but it's not a straight-forward process, and requires a bit of effort. (Never tried it myself, sorry.)

  19. How this is newsworthy now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I have such a 1GB model from PowerColor for 2 months now and since the last linux driver release, it runs flawlessly there too. Slashdot, late as always :/

  20. I'm not feeding the trolls... by ascendant · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It was my understanding that ATI hardware was fine- it was the drivers that made it inferior to nVidia for performance gaming. Which would mean that if ATI and nVidia drivers were equal, ATI would win with hardware. On a side note, is it Nvidia, nVidia, or safely nVIDIA like on the website?

    --
    Do not attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by incompetence.
    1. Re:I'm not feeding the trolls... by afroborg · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Does it matter? As far as I can see it is irrelevant why the system is slow, whether it's slow harware or slow drivers, it's still slow. If nVidia produce better drivers to squeeze more performance out of their hardware then you still get more fps in the end. Does it matter where it comes from? It's not like (at the moment) anyone else is writing better drivers than the manufacturers...

      And AFAICS, the statement that "ATI's hardware is better it's just the drivers that let them down" sounds pretty unsubstantiated and unprovable, and more than just a little bit fanboyish...

      --
      my sig could kick your sig's arse...
    2. Re:I'm not feeding the trolls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is NVIDIA.

    3. Re:I'm not feeding the trolls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drivers let them down on the BSD side. Please, tell me, where can I locate drivers for my FreeBSD 6.2 sporting one of these? Oh the DRI linux drivers? NO GO MY FRIEND. BSD != Linux.

      nVida, where can I get my friendly BSD drivers? Oh, right on your site, well thank you good sirs.

      That is how you buy my business.

  21. Depends on what side your on... by msimm · · Score: 1

    If enough people will pay for it to create a sustainable market, it's needed (period). Not to mention I hear what sounds like and assumption that this is going to be targeted at the enthusiast market, side-stepping the high-end (and high-cost) graphics shops and their associated market. Unless we assumed Pixar ran all their workstations on...pixie dust?

    Anyway, if it finds a markets more power. Engineers do their jobs, people get paid. Welcome the open market. (:

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:Depends on what side your on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, nice backwards smiley there. The smiley emoticon has been around for 25 years, and it looks like this: :)

    2. Re:Depends on what side your on... by msimm · · Score: 1

      And there's always room for improvement. (:|>

      --
      Quack, quack.
  22. 2Gbytes....anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Going once ...going twice....I need 2Gbytes to 4Gbytes video card :D

  23. Shouldn't there be a sign somewhere? by ascendant · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Note to self: do not feed trolls; more come over to see what's up...

    --
    Do not attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by incompetence.
  24. bitchin by savuporo · · Score: 5, Funny

    All these years later, and its still no match for the original Bitchin' fast 3d! 2000 Livin' la Video loca con Puerto Para Garficios Acelerados Gigante!

    --
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
  25. Yes but by diego.viola · · Score: 1

    When will they release their promised 3d specifications for their GPUs?

  26. Wake me when it's got 8GB by fast+turtle · · Score: 1
    then I'll be able to simply heat my entire house without turning the damn heaters on while running the Folding GPU client.

    Seriously though, we're already seeing problems with PSU's that can't deliver enough on the 12volt rail (2900XT needs 24 Amps by itself) and now they want to push that up to 26-28 amps? So where is the power going to come from? The wicked fairy's curse?

    --
    Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    1. Re:Wake me when it's got 8GB by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Seriously though, we're already seeing problems with PSU's that can't deliver enough on the 12volt rail "

      That limitation is a design choice. Beefier supplies are no problem to build.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Wake me when it's got 8GB by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      That's one reason I'm going with Intel's graphics in my next PC. The other reason being that good drivers already exist for it.

  27. Whither my RAM on ia32? by thenerdgod · · Score: 1

    Considering how much address space MMIO takes up in Windows 32-bit OS's, One can only imagine some poor sap buying two of these and wondering why he only has 1.8GB of RAM available in Windows.

    "lawl"

  28. Big screens.... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    How about one of these?

    --
    No sig today...
  29. 1GB Video Memory != "1GB Frame Buffer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Frame buffers will only take a fraction of that gibibyte. Sure they'll take plenty if you are triple-buffering with FP32/component pixels, but still the vast majority of that on-card memory pool goes to local storage of textures; in comparison a minority goes to shader programs, frame buffers and the Z/Stencil buffer.

    So please have some clue when posting hardware stuff on a fairly popular tech-oriented site... Technical terms aren't freely interchangeable, you know, because they are, you know, technical terms.

  30. Umm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, surely I'm missing something, I have been running a HD2900XT 1GB (by Powercolor) for about 2 months now...

  31. But is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They themselves have recommended "NVIDIA" for some time, but since it's never been an acronym, "Nvidia" makes most sense. Let's not succumb to their corporate perversions of age-old spelling conventions... Otherwise it gets like the way ATI has SMARTSHADER technology enabled by their CATALYST drivers ;-P

    1. Re:But is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marry me?

  32. But, wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone explain this to me -- I thought one of the strong points of the PCI Express bus means that, technically, a PCIe graphics card's memory is limited only by your own computer's memory, that it doesn't have to exclusively rely on its own RAM to hold textures, etc.

  33. TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    N/T

  34. nVidia Eyez by pickapeppa · · Score: 1

    At some point, if they want me to keep buying new video cards, they are going to have to upgrade my eyes. Elder Scrolls V will look better than Christmas morning; but watching movies in the theater will be all choppy and hard to hear. And setting up SLi will be even more painful than it was the first time.

  35. Can't resist! by proudfoot · · Score: 1

    Imagine a beowulf cluster of these... Actually, with ATI's CTM technology which allows these to be used as stream processors, you could get alot of math done with a couple of these.

  36. More info on the 4GB limit by dizzydogg · · Score: 2, Informative

    A 32bit OS can only address 4GB of RAM. If you have 1GB of video memory, that eats up 1GB of the 4GB limit, so yes, 2 1GB cards would halve the total amount of ram available to the system. That is with any cards, weather it's one card or 2 in Crossfire or SLI.

    A good article on it is here: http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm