AMD-ATI Ships Radeon 2900 XT With 1GB Memory

MojoKid writes "Prior to AMD-ATI's Radeon HD 2000 series introduction, rumors circulated regarding an ultra-high clocked ATI R600-based card, that featured a large 1GB frame buffer. Some even went so far as to say the GPU would be clocked near 1GHz. When the R600 arrived in the form of the Radeon HD 2900 XT, it was outfitted with 'only' 512MB of frame buffer memory and its GPU and memory clock speeds didn't come close to the numbers in those early rumors. Some of AMD's partners, however, have since decided to introduce R600-based products that do feature 1GB frame buffers, like the Diamond Viper HD 2900 XT 1GB in both single-card and CrossFire configurations. At 2GHz DDR, the memory on the card is also clocked higher than AMD's reference designs but the GPU remains clocked at 742MHz"

But...

[gQuigs (913879)]

Does it run (on) Linux yet?

That could be viewed as a serious question

[MSRedfox (1043112)]

Hopefully, it will run well under Linux in the near future given AMD's recent actions. As was covered previously on here, AMD has already release quite a bit of detail to improve Linux support. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/24/053252 [slashdot.org]

Re:But...

[dascritch (808772)]

A lit'l more RAM and it can run Windows Vista. By itself.

Re:But...

[hitmark (640295)]

but dont expect it to run any office software at the same time...

Re:But...

[UnderDark (869922)]

Why would I want a card whose only purpose in life is make lots of calculations quickly and accurately run MS Office Excel 2007?

Re:

[CastrTroy (595695)]

I bought a vista laptop with only 512 MB of ram. It booted, quite slowly, but it worked. Anyway, I promptly installed Mandriva and it runs very smoothly. Vista is still installed though. It runs like a pig towing a tractor.

Re:But...

[tux_deamon (663650)]

I know you're kidding, but as a matter of fact, it is supported under Linux by a couple different drivers.

A good review of the 2900 XT under Linux [phoronix.com]In fact, you have options.

Using the proprietary driver [phoronix.com]

Using the open source driver [phoronix.com]

Re:But...

[kshade (914666)]

Well, you can use it to speed up swapping a little: http://gentoo-wiki.com/TIP_Use_memory_on_video_card_as_swap [gentoo-wiki.com]

also, more vespene gas

[User 956 (568564)]

When the R600 arrived in the form of the Radeon HD 2900 XT, it was outfitted with 'only' 512MB of frame buffer memory and its GPU and memory clock speeds didn't come close to the numbers in those early rumors.

Well, that's because when they tried to build the 1GB units, a loud voice was heard saying "We require more minerals", and production was blocked.

Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream..

[Chas (5144)]

These cards are ridiculous. ESPECIALLY in Crossfire installs.

Wow! Now that 4GB of main system memory I installed has been pared back down to a more manageable 2GB!

WHEE!

Until 64-bit becomes more mainstream, cards like this will only become more and more detrimental to the systems they're installed in.

Re:

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

These cards are ridiculous. ESPECIALLY in Crossfire installs.

You mean like doubly so? Like the point that the money spent on the doubling the money is almost completely wasted, the money spent on doubling the graphics chips is almost completely wasted?

Re:

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

I mean "doubling the memory". Stupid sleepiness.

Re:

[Chas (5144)]

No. I mean that since this memory has to be mapped within a 32-bit address space, you wind up wasting space that could be better allocated to system memory.

Sure, for anything that remains strictly on the graphics card, it's great. But for anything else (functions besides raw graphics in a game (like AI) or for non-gaming application), stealing that memory allocation space degrades overall system performance.

Re:

[Doppler00 (534739)]

Yeah, this is why I'm waiting before upgrading my computer. I need to see better 64 bit support in the future. I always plan on doubling everything at next major upgrade. From 2GB -> 4GB, 2 cores -> 4 cores. Until there is an operating system and application support though, I don't think I'm going to go there.

Re:

[Colin Smith (2679)]

Right because Linux hasn't been 64bit and running on SMP systems for years...

Oh wait. You meant Windows. Sorry, I do apologize ... Well, you'll have to wait the traditional 3 year Microsoft lag behind the state of the art.
 

Re:

[jlarocco (851450)]

This is where open source trumps closed source, hands down.

In the majority of cases, having an open source 32-bit driver, almost automatically implies having a 64-bit driver. It's just a recompile. Yes, a lot of the time there will be bugs, but since developers are usually on "higher end" 64-bit systems, those bugs are usually fixed quickly.

I'm running 64-bit Debian, and have never had a problem with drivers. My video card, sound card, firewire card, USB devices, network cards and printer all work

Re:

[Chas (5144)]

With multi-core support, I don't think that's really going to change. You're not necessarily going to see a huge "performance boost" from massively parallel processing.

However, you'll still have the luxury of running multiple processor intensive apps without bringing the whole system to a standstill.

Re:

[Lorkki (863577)]

What are the specific problems with OS and application support you're having? Windows may be an issue if you still need applications with 16-bit components or if you have bad luck with driver support. In Linux there's trouble with closed-source browser plugins, which can be partly alleviated with nspluginwrapper, although Java 6 can still be a pain. Other than that, the support is about as good as it can be expected to get, and I've been running the AMD64 builds of both Ubuntu and XP on my desktop since whe

Re:

[ichigo 2.0 (900288)]

When did the Orz start posting on slashdot?

Re:

[Spikeles (972972)]

"Who are you? You are not Orz! We are Orz! Orz are happy *people energy* from the outside. Can you come together with Orz for *parties*?" - The Orz, Star Control II

Re:

[Chas (5144)]

Note: Wasn't talking about for ME. I'm already running 64-bit, as I've chosen hardware that's fairly well supported driver-wise.

Re:Considering 32-bit OSes are still mainstream..

[Schemat1c (464768)]

Note: Wasn't talking about for ME. I'm already running 64-bit, as I've chosen hardware that's fairly well supported driver-wise.

Sorry but even 64-bit isn't going to help ME run any better.

Re:

[ichigo 2.0 (900288)]

Lies! Windows ME runs exactly as designed!

Too bad it was designed by left-handed monkeys on crack.

Re:

[ichigo 2.0 (900288)]

In Soviet Russia, left hand is always right!

Re:

[Chas (5144)]

That's great. No. Really!

I'm not talking about an XBox. I'm talking about a PC.

An XBox has half a gig of memory, half of which is dedicated to graphics at a relatively low-res output.

I'm talking about a gaming PC with 2+GB of RAM in it and how graphics cards with multiple gigs of memory are detrimental to overall system performance (including gaming) in a 32-bit memory map.

Re:"Framebuffer memory"

[AHuxley (892839)]

640p is enough for anyone.

Re:

[Chas (5144)]

If I hadn't started this sub-thread, I'd have modded that up for funny. ;-)

UEI++

[thatskinnyguy (1129515)]

Hmmm This might mod my Vista User Experience Index up to 3.0

Re:

[thatskinnyguy (1129515)]

Exactly how is this trolling? I got a new video card yesterday and it boosted my UEI from 1 to 2. Imagine my disappointment. I learned my lesson: say something remotely negative about Vista on /. and get down modded.

Finally some effects!

[The-Pheon (65392)]

With this new hardware, will be able to run vim with some colors for syntax highlighting? :)

Re:

[chuckymonkey (1059244)]

It's not vim you have to worry about, it's emacs.

Useless!

[ynososiduts (1064782)]

Unless you are running quad 32" screens at some insane resolution, there is no need for 1 GB of frame buffer RAM. I think this is more for the "OMG MI VIF CARD HAZ 1 GIGGBYTES OF MEMORYIES!11!" type.

Re:

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS- (624050)]

I take it you've never gamed at very high resolutions with ALL the eyecandy turned on.

Re:

[ynososiduts (1064782)]

My 8800 GTS with 320 MB runs all games fine at 1680x1050 with max settings. That's pretty much one third of one gigabyte. I seriously doubt you need one, let alone two, gigabytes of video RAM.

Re:

[MikShapi (681808)]

I second that. I run an 8800GTS/320 on a triple 17'' 1280x1024 setup (using a matrox triplehead2go digital to split the DVI signal in 3). The card pushes out 3840x1024, which amounts to about 4MP, and it's been happy so far in Gothic, Oblivion, S.T.A.L.K.E.R and a bunch of other titles, giving very reasonable frame rates with either all or practically all the graphics bells and whistles turned on.

Memory doesn't make a card faster, except on REALLY insane resolutions (way higher than 4MP I suspect) when you

Re:

[mikkelm (1000451)]

You're going to have to spill the beans on how you manage to run S.T.A.L.K.E.R. in a resolution like that, and how you manage to do it on that kind of hardware.

With an 8800GTS/320, myself, and most all review sites, struggle to stay above 60FPS in 1024x768 at times with all the eyecandy on.

Re:Useless!

[DigiShaman (671371)]

It's not just for frame buffering. That memory is also used to store texture maps, Z-buffers, stencil buffers, etc. Basically, Almost all of it is used for 3D games/applications. If all you needed was a 2D card, you could get away with just 64MB of on-board RAM.

Re:

[Craig Davison (37723)]

Mod parent up. 'Framebuffer'? The article submitter's brain is stuck in about 1995.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that texture size is completely independent of screen resolution right? And that you possibly have hundreds of textures loaded at once? And they can't be stored compressed because decompression would take too long?

Basically, other than the framebuffer for what's actually displayed on screen none of the graphics card memory is depended on screen resolution.

Anyway, this card isn't useful *now*. That's because video game producers target the cards that are widely available. 2 years from now you'

Quad 32" screens at 1600x1200 fits in 32Mb

[Joce640k (829181)]

Do the math. You don't need anywhere near 1Gb for that.

What you *do* need it for is texture and vertex data, but even then games aren't really going to use it - they're designed for current hardware.

Nope, the only people who'll buy this are ignorants with too much money*.

- Not that there's any shortage of those.

[*] ...and medical people who like to look at 3D textures from MRI scans - they can never get enough video memory. 1Gb is only enough for a single 512x512x512 texture.

This is probably redundant but..

[Chas (5144)]

The memory on a video card is used for more than just simple frame buffering.

Notice how some of the newer games see less performance degradation on some of the 640MB nVidia cards than equivallently clocked 320MB versions of the same card.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Hey, nice backwards smiley there. The smiley emoticon has been around for 25 years, and it looks like this: :)

Useful for 3D animation work.

[Animats (122034)]

Sounds useful for 3D animation work, where you need all that memory for textures. Remember, by the time players see a game, the textures have been "optimized"; stored at the minimum resolution that will do the job, and possibly with level of detail processing in the game engine. Developers and artists need to work with that data in its original, high-resolution form.

Re:

[Runefox (905204)]

Yeah... The FireGL has been doing that for several years. In fact, they have a 2GB version [amd.com] now, the V8650. Don't try it with games, though. Not going to work so well.

Ahh...

[xx01dk (191137)]

Question. Where are the ships? I wanted to read about video cards and ships. This article only half-delivers.

Frame buffer? You mean video ram?

[chrisl456 (699707)]

Umm, not to sound like a tech jargon-nazi, but "frame buffer" to me has always meant just the part of video ram that "mirrors" what you see on screen. A 1GB frame buffer would give you 16384x16384x32bit color, so unless you're doing some kind of huge multi-screen setup, 1GB of frame buffer is a bit overkill. ;)

Re:Frame buffer? You mean video ram?

[aliquis (678370)]

And here he where trying to be cool using new words he had seen, and you ruined it all :(

What is the point for most users?

[polyex (736819)]

I understand if you were doing research of any sort that would exploit this hardware - assuming you use ALL of it or can write the code to do so - the better bandwidth you have, the faster the results etc. I understand hardware like this being useful in this regard. I also understand it from the perspective of a software developer who may be developing with this hardware for a future product that will be released in a year or so, and this sort of hardware will be more standard at that time and affordable.

Eventually

[LM741N (258038)]

The mobo will be a giant video card and the cpu will reside in a board on one of the slots.

bitchin

[savuporo (658486)]

All these years later, and its still no match for the original Bitchin' fast 3d! 2000 [carcino.gen.nz] Livin' la Video loca con Puerto Para Garficios Acelerados Gigante!