Next gen video chips: April 26th

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 1:08 pm

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=2018

Nuff Said.

STRESSTEST · Post by **STRESSTEST** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:35 pm

Not as juicy as I'd have liked it to be, but spacific none the less.

Mr. Perfect · Post by **Mr. Perfect** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:43 pm

512 MB of video ram? How ★■◆●ing rediculous can you get...

STRESSTEST · Post by **STRESSTEST** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:45 pm

Mr. Perfect wrote:512 MB of video ram? How **** rediculous can you get...

Ask Matrox, they did it.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:56 pm

Its the next obvious step after 256 MB, why not? Granted, 128 is still plenty right now (also granted, I have a 256 MB card). By the time these cards are actually put to full use you might actually need that much ram for large textures, shader programs, and some massive antialiasing framebuffer.

Max_T · Post by **Max_T** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 5:33 pm

krom, and u post this after that little discussion we had on icq...lol

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:23 pm

Gaming is not even close to being one of Matrox' core markets.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:18 pm

Max, dont bring it here.

Mr. Perfect · Post by **Mr. Perfect** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:28 pm

Sure, we might need 512 someday, but as it is we're not even seeing perormance gains from 256 unless you're doing some insane AA and AF at tremendous resolutions. This card series will probably get replaced again in '05, and I doubt our graphics memory needs are going to quadruple in the next year.

STRESSTEST · Post by **STRESSTEST** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 8:35 pm

bash wrote:Gaming is not even close to being one of Matrox' core markets.

agreed, but they still put 512 on cards none the less. And lets not even get into workstation cards.

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 9:32 pm

Mr. P, to understand why 512 is advantageous, consider that Matrox targets medical professionals, researchers, military, stock brokers, video/music producers, etc., often using three or more monitors. As a Matrox user, believe me, I wish it was more concerned with 3D and fps rates, but unfortunately very high resolution 2D across multiple monitors is its focus and that is reflected in both its hardware and software drivers. There are few games I can play triplehead and even many I cannot run singlehead and despite all the whining from Matrox gamers to give more emphasis toward gaming, Matrox pays very little attention to it. Matrox has it's niche markets and as a small company it isn't about to try to go head-to-head with monsters like NVidia or ATI.

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 10:09 pm

512Meg of memory would be great for putting huge textures/bumpmaps on planets in Celestia. i could also think of many other things i do that would be vastly better with 512meg of memory, and games are not one of them

. although with that much memory/detail, maybe you could utilize some impressive "be the detective and try to notice small things" gameplay ideas.

there are hundreds (or was it thousands) of TERRABYTES of data encompasing the current most detailed terrain map of earth (thx nasa). how do you display 3D models of that data without the videomemory for the job. you could do cool things with that.

wouldn't it be a different world if memory was so CHEAP to manufacture that it was a non-issue

. mmm i have a dream

Mr. Perfect · Post by **Mr. Perfect** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 12:10 am

I wasn't refering to Matrox, Bash, that was Stress.

They've got their own little niche, but I'm wondering about the gamers cards from ATI and Nvidia.

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 12:17 am

ah, my misunderstanding. I thought you were referring to Matrox from your earlier post.