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

  • Thread starter Thread starter CHANGE USERNAME TO westes
  • Start date Start date
C

CHANGE USERNAME TO westes

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.
 
CHANGE USERNAME TO westes said:
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.
Click to expand...


It would greatly increase their price.
 
Enormous Genitals said:
message It would greatly increase their price.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CHANGE USERNAME TO westes said:
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.
Click to expand...

Have you ever paid $500 for one of ATI or nVidia's latest graphics cards as
soon as it was released?
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
CHANGE USERNAME TO westes said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...)
 
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
 
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)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.)
 
CHANGE said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Back
Top