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
Houdani - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
ATI has earned your contempt, and deservedly so. Thank you yet again for giving the hardware suits a potent dose of reality.Clearly the games reviewed today are optimized to run on cards with less than 256MB, thereby making the 512MB superfluous. However, the folks above point out that Carmack had other notions in mind -- something which ExtremeTech appears to corroborate. If nothing else, it bears some investigation in order to understand where the difference lies.
LoneWolf15 - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
Originally, Doom 3's recommendation for Ultra High quality mode was a system with a gig of RAM and a 512MB video card so all textures could fit within VRAM. At the time, a 512MB card didn't exist, and 256MB cards were still uber-high technology (Geforce 6800Ultra and Radeon X800XT-PE).I can't think of another game however, where 512MB of graphics RAM is needed, much as articles say "Soon we will". Heck, many people just went from 128MB to 256MB, and smart game developers are going to keep their games at a level where as many systems as possible can run them (which IMO means a Geforce 6600 with 128MB of RAM, or the equivalent). Unless you're running all your games at 1600x1200 (I'm running mostly at 1280x1024 still as I get better monitor refresh rates), I don't see 512MB as being necessary for some time, and even a 128/256MB card will handle most games at that resolution given a fast enough GPU.
mbhame - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
#7: Interesting. I hadn't heard Doom III could use so much System RAM. I don't have a rig capable of touching such resolution, etc. so I couldn't verify personally.I'm gonna check out their article.
ET - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
I don't know. I'm just looking at ExtremeTech's preview of the card, and they get 32FPS for Ultra High mode (with 4xAA and 8xAF) with the 256MB card and 49.3 with the 512MB one. This is opposed to 28.8 and 29.1 for the same at Anandtech.The systems the two used are a bit different, with the Anandtech system having a faster CPU but only 1GB vs. 2GB for the ExtremeTech system. It may be that in this mode Doom3 is so memory hungry that 1GB isn't enough?
mbhame - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
#5: That *is* what Ultra mode does. Ultra mode *is* purely-uncompressed textures and id themselves, if not Carmack himself, claimed you'd need 512MB VRAM to run it all w/o swapping. And that is what was benched in Page 3 of the article.I truly hope I'm misunderstanding or overlooking something.
ET - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
Re #2: yeah, wasn't Doom3 supposed to have a mode that has all textures uncompressed and requires 512MB?Speedo - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
I see no reason to pay extra to get 512MB. #3, I don't think there's even much improvement from 128->256MB.mongoosesRawesome - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
The amount of memory on a card is the most advertised and consequently the most important feature to uninformed consumers. Does 256 MB (vs. 128MB) of memory even matter in resolutions below 1600x1200?Just as with CPU's (clock speed), people want a single measure to judge one GPU against another.
mbhame - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
May I ask why nobody is calling out Carmack on his claims of Ultra *needing* >256MB VRAM when this X800XL 512MB doesn't hardly outperform its 256MB brethren in 1600x1200 Ultra w/4xAA?!?!There is something else afoot - elsewise id's claims are utterly absurd!
So which is it???
erinlegault - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
ATI needs to start acting like the lower cost alternative to Nvidia again. Why would you put 512MB on a 800XL and pay $150 more for no noticable benefit? At least a 512MB X850 XT PE would show more improvement, but they would probably charge $999 for it.