ATI's Radeon X800 XL 512MB - A toe in the 512MB pool
by Anand Lal Shimpi on May 4, 2005 9:27 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
Without a doubt, there will be a time when 512MB cards will be necessary. As we mentioned earlier, more local GPU memory is never a bad thing, it just has to be taken advantage of, and that time is not now.Performance across the majority of the games that we tested remained unchanged, even at their highest detail settings. We were a bit surprised that there was such a tangible benefit to the 512MB card running Half Life 2, but in the end, we attained better performance out of a similarly priced X850 XT with only 256MB of memory, even under Half Life 2.
ATI's desire to make their first 512MB part based on the X800 XL doesn't appear to make much sense either. The large amount of on-board memory would seem best fit for a GPU that was capable of running at resolutions and detail settings that would see some performance benefit from the additional memory.
We are worried that ATI doesn't have their users as Priority One, given the level of confusion that the X800 XL 512MB will insert into their product line. Without a significantly lower price tag, the new 512MB board inadvertently competes with ATI's X850 XT, which is clearly the better performer. With a 30% fill rate advantage, even in future games that do eat up more memory, we'd expect the X850 XT to still outperform the X800 XL 512MB. The fact of the matter is that developers aren't going to leave the majority of the gamers in the dark when it comes to implementing features and improving image quality. We wouldn't expect 512MB graphics cards to be the target for any development until the next generation of GPUs actually begins getting into the hands of gamers later this year. At that point, you're better off picking up a new GPU with more memory rather than one based on the year-old R42x architecture.
We can't help but feel a little puzzled by today's launch, but at the same time, very curious. Not so much about the X800 XL 512MB itself, but whether or not ATI will hold true to their word this time around. The X800 XL 512MB had better arrive later this month; otherwise, ATI will have just dug themselves a deeper hole and this time, it will have been for no actual benefit.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
70 Comments
View All Comments
aliasfox - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
The x800xl is not the best card on the Mac side... the 6800 Ultra DDL and x800XT have been available for some time, both with DDL support for the 30" display.Of course, I'm just waiting for someone to hook a massive SLI system up to a 30" and actually *play* a modern game at 2560x1600... that would surely be a sight to see...
Cuser - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
GED: I gree with you on the OpenGL thing. I thought nvidia was in the lead with OpenGL support. My old ATI would not play in OpenGL at all!However, I disagree with your second post. If it were that simple, why do rendered games need so much RAM? I am pretty sure there are other things stored in video RAM when rendering the OS in 3D including textures. I think the days of the VRAM being used as JUST a frame buffer in the OS are numbered.
Ged - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
"2) On a MACINTOSH with Tiger, extra VRAM is a very good thing for the future, considering how the Quartz 2D Extreme will work (utilizing the GPU for OS rendering, caching it in VRAM)"You shouldn't need close to 512MB of VRAM for displaying OSX's 'Quartz 2D Extreme'.
Consider that Apple's largest display is 2560x1600 pixels (4096000 pixels total) x 24 bpp (I'm assuming 24bpp) = 98,304,000 bits for a frame (12,288,000 bytes for a frame).
Even if you had 20 full screen frames which you composited together for the full effect it would only take 245,760,000 bytes which is still within the 256MB on current generations of cards (using 32bpp it's still under 256MB at 19 complete frames).
I seriously doubt that anything Quartz would do would need that much VRAM. If Quartz does need that much VRAM, I think something is really, really wrong.
Someone please correct my math if I'm off, but something's wrong if you need 512MB to display 2D OS graphics.
Ged - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
"1) ATI is better at OpenGL than Nvidia"Everything I have read and all the benchmarks I have seen are oposite of this claim.
What am I missing?
racolvin - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
Anand:Two things to remember about these cards:
1) ATI is better at OpenGL than Nvidia
2) On a MACINTOSH with Tiger, extra VRAM is a very good thing for the future, considering how the Quartz 2D Extreme will work (utilizing the GPU for OS rendering, caching it in VRAM)
Everything on the Mac is OpenGL, so ATI testing the waters with this part is not surprising when I think of it in the Mac-future context. The X800XL would still be the best card available for the Mac folks should it make it to that side of the fence ;)
R
StrangerGuy - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
Yet another pointless release from ATI, or Nvidia if it matter with their respective 512MB cards.BTW I saw an advertisement on a 512MB X300SE by ECS via a link from AT forums. Anyone has a 486 with 512MB yet?
Cuser - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
Bersl2: I sympathize with where you are coming from. However there are 2 things that you are not considering.First, Microsoft controls the operating system, so, it would stand to reason they control (if not have a large influence on) the ways and methods the developers, programmers, and hardware alike interact with that system(and vise versa).
Secondly, DirectX api is developed in collaboration with the graphics industry (or at least so I am led to believe).
I think the real reason to get upset by this is if microsoft abuses this power (do they?).
Furthermore, I myself would like to see more titles using OpenGL, if not to promote diversity and not be dependant on only one API.
I am not a developer, but it seems that more and more games are only using DirectX API because Microsoft pushes it (i.e...easier to get information, training, SDK's, and is advertised everywhere.)
OpenGL is an open standard and does not seem to have that type of support. But, this is just my observation so far. Maybe someone in the industry could shed some light on this...
bersl2 - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
Cuser: Your assertion I agree with, if not your reasoning.Think about this: *Why* should Microsoft be the one controlling the API? The games they've "made" have (almost?) all been bought from somebody else. They don't make hardware either. Why is everybody being led around on a leash by the middleman?
It's frustrating when there's very little reason (and if there is a halfway decent reason, I'd like to hear about it---and don't give me that "ease of use" crap; any competent programmer can use either API rather well) not to use OpenGL over Direct3D, other than the "Nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft" mentality.
aliasfox - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
I'm sure Aero Glass in all it's glory will want more than 64 MB VRAM. Given that a) it's Microsoft (not known for its sleek software) and b) that it's still a year away.My reasoning? Mac OSX (don't shoot me). OSX's Aqua interface is also 3D in the absolute barest sense of the word, and the rendering engine uses the GPU for textures and such (my understanding, at least). Features such as Exposé on Panther (which has been out for ~18 months) are much, much happier in 64 MB RAM than in 32.
In addition, some of Apple's new features in Tiger need a GPU with DX9 features. I have a feeling Microsoft will do the same thing with Longhorn. But perhaps no more than 128 MB VRAM, I would hope.
fishbits - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
LOL, guess we'll have to wait and see what the real reasoning for designing the card was, and how good a buy it will be (and for whom and when). Anand nailed it when he said it was a raw deal for most of us as things stand now.