Brentk 1 Posted January 16, 2002 Have you guys heard about the video card with 1 gigabyte of ram??? I'd paste the link but i cant find it!!!!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ex-RoNiN 0 Posted January 16, 2002 because its a load of bollox and 5 yrs or more away ffs, even the geforce 4 wont have more than 128 megs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brentk 1 Posted January 16, 2002 Well it was a smaller name company with a set release for a year(i think......). If i find the link ill put it up in here Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Frag 0 Posted January 16, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Jan. 17 2002,04:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">because its a load of bollox and 5 yrs or more away ffs, even the geforce 4 wont have more than 128 megs.<span id='postcolor'> You are thinking in terms of consumer-level boards, not professional-use and workstations. Silicon Graphics SGI 540 Cobalt workstations have up to 1.9GB of video memory. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brentk 1 Posted January 16, 2002 hmmmmmm not sure, but maybe Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wobble 1 Posted January 16, 2002 I think it will be a long time before we see a board with a gig of memory.. because insted we will see cards with VERY VERY VERY fast memory like the QDR stuff being developed.(quadrupal data rate) that runs at 2ns.. in actuallity todays cards that use DDR have are the same as a card with twice as much SDR ram.. like the GF2 ultra DDRRAM.. its like it had 128mb of SDRRAM. then again.. ya never know Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 16, 2002 Mr. Frag - isn't that shared memory, though? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Frag 0 Posted January 17, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OBiJuan @ Jan. 17 2002,07:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mr. Frag - isn't that shared memory, though?<span id='postcolor'> Yes, the use of shared frame buffers are a common architecture for UNIX workstations. Still, this is memory set aside for display lists, drawing surfaces, textures etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 17, 2002 Yeah, it's just that in Windoze, sharing RAM with your video card means you are taking away from memory. SO, an equivalent system would be one with 2 Gig SDRAM and 1.9 GB of it is shared with video, leaving a system with only 100 MB of RAM. ALso, accessing that shared RAM is slower than accessing dedicated RAM chips on the video card. Thats intel systems though. ARe the unix architecture machines different? Personally, I don't believe we are too far from video cards with dedicated 512MB RAM. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Frag 0 Posted January 17, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OBiJuan @ Jan. 17 2002,08:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, it's just that in Windoze, sharing RAM with your video card means you are taking away from memory. Â SO, an equivalent system would be one with 2 Gig SDRAM and 1.9 GB of it is shared with video, leaving a system with only 100 MB of RAM. Â ALso, accessing that shared RAM is slower than accessing dedicated RAM chips on the video card. Â Thats intel systems though. Â ARe the unix architecture machines different? Personally, I don't believe we are too far from video cards with dedicated 512MB RAM.<span id='postcolor'> Some SGI systems running UNIX are based on Intel Pentium processors, and have architectures similar to our PCs. Other workstation products have a very different design with extremely high-speed buses and memory -- they generally blow the pants off PC-based systems for anything that is graphics intensive. I also totally agree that memory sizes on our graphics cards will grow quickly, which will only be accelerated by the fact that all major graphics chip designers are working on moving beyond 32-bit color. When that happens, frame sizes increase, as well as texture sizes. Five years from now, we'll be laughing at the NV15/NV20 and R200/R300 chipsets... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ex-RoNiN 0 Posted January 17, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Jan. 16 2002,23:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">because its a load of bollox and 5 yrs or more away ffs, even the geforce 4 wont have more than 128 megs.<span id='postcolor'> You are thinking in terms of consumer-level boards, not professional-use and workstations. Silicon Graphics SGI 540 Cobalt workstations have up to 1.9GB of video memory.<span id='postcolor'> If I was thinking on workstation level, then I'd own a Gloria 2 ffs, I have a budget to keep! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
R. Gerschwarzenge 0 Posted January 17, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Five years from now, we'll be laughing at the NV15/NV20 and R200/R300 chipsets...<span id='postcolor'> That's true. Remember this? No one would ever need more than 640K of memory. -Bill Gates Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damage Inc 0 Posted January 17, 2002 And the other guy said "I think there's market for maybe five computers". I can't remember who that was but remember him being some IBM guy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
R. Gerschwarzenge 0 Posted January 17, 2002 That was Thomas Watson the Chairman of IBM. He said that in 1943. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MadMatriX 0 Posted January 17, 2002 "in actuallity todays cards that use DDR have are the same as a card with twice as much SDR ram.. like the GF2 ultra DDRRAM.. its like it had 128mb of SDRRAM." DDR does 2 memory functions in 1 clock pulse doubling the speed which doubles the bandwidth to the memory. The GPU would get data quicker from the ddr even know there was less memory. a better comparison would be 64MB SDRAM @ 400Mhz would be similar in bandwidth to 32MB DDR @ 200Mhz. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 17, 2002 You can stick as much memory onto a card as you want. It doesn't matter as only a portion of it can ever really be kept in use, as there is a limited amount of bandwidth from system memory/CPU over the bus. It's like building a bath tub that can hold thousands of litres but only gets filled by a pipe the size of a straw. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shabadu 0 Posted January 6, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (R. Gerschwarzenge @ Jan. 17 2002,15:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That was Thomas Watson the Chairman of IBM. He said that in 1943. Â <span id='postcolor'> What he said was (Maybe not exactly) "I don't see why there would ever need to be more than five computers in the whole world." Or words to that effect. Also 1 gig boards are probably used in industry, by hollywood film graphics ppl etc... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warin 0 Posted January 6, 2003 Closing There are lots of more current threads to discuss. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
