And 32 Bit users who have 2GB of RAM installed will lose the amount of RAM that they can use....

tkpenaltyAnd 32 Bit users who have 2GB of RAM installed will lose the amount of RAM that they can use....

Actually a good point, then again users using XP already use functionality with DX10 cards. So perhaps it's good for the market, another reason to move to 64 bit Vista. Eventually we all need to swap anyway, it's always nice to have actual reasons.

2gb... marketing ploy. that aint ever gonna be needed

Man, this thing would probably be a CAD monster.

not good for all 32-bit users, especially those still on XP, but still 2GB in a card that will probably never use a 1GB of memory is over kill

cjoyce1980not good for all 32-bit users, especially those still on XP, but still 2GB in a card that will probably never use a 1GB of memory is over kill

Amen.

My brother at Uni is using CAD programs that recommend 3GB of memory on XP and more for Vista.

Its not bad for the select market that actually do heavy CAD work that don't have enough RAM or their RAM is being used by other apps.

Then again, assuming the price of one of these will be really high...it will probably be a lot cheaper to just buy RAM.

512mb is obviously the norm at the moment, but since the 8800 series, (GTX in particular) it has put pressure on the standard that graphics memory size is right now. I think 768mb-1gb will be more prevalent say within 6 months? And who knows, we will probably start seeing games that will use 768mb-1gb soon.

wow sooooooooo unnecessary ....... considering 1gb yields bugger all increase ......

even when cards use 2gb this GPU will not have enough power to fill it all.

Wonder what kind of bus too, probably 512-bit. Although I don't have the specific technical knowledge, logic tells me that isn't gonna cut it. Now if its 1024-bit, then that just might be a beast for super high resolutions.....

very true, in 2004 the did 512mb and no one thought that was needed, 2006 rolled around and a few changed there minds, but 256 was still enough, then 2007 and 320-512 became the norm, it wont be long before 512 is the new 128mb

farlex85Wonder what kind of bus too, probably 512-bit. Although I don't have the specific technical knowledge, logic tells me that isn't gonna cut it. Now if its 1024-bit, then that just might be a beast for super high resolutions.....

nope.... its your bog standard 256bit bus. All they are doing that is different to a standard 512Mb card is doubling the memory chip capacity & then putting the same chips on the back of the card.
I would say the biggest limiting fact for a card with that much memory is the bus width. 256bit is crippeling it.

Also it wouldn't be any good for CAD as its lacking the special OpenGL processes that Quadro/FireGL cards have.

CAD would really need this as it eats your memory like hell... Good for some 30 inch Dell monitor with crazy ass HD res...

cmberry20nope.... its your bog standard 256bit bus. All they are doing that is different to a standard 512Mb card is doubling the memory chip capacity & then putting the same chips on the back of the card.
I would say the biggest limiting fact for a card with that much memory is the bus width. 256bit is crippeling it.

Also it wouldn't be any good for CAD as its lacking the special OpenGL processes that Quadro/FireGL cards have.

2GB on a 256-bit bus, thats just silly.:shadedshu Am I wrong in thinking that most of that memory can't even be accessed quickly enough to make any kind of impact with a bus like that?

What a waste of RAM. The difference between 512MB and 1024MB 8800GT's proved to be nil (there's no game on the market now or in the foreseeable future that will ever saturate anything even close to 1Gb), what point is there to a 2GB 9600GT? nVidia is desperate to make some money on their budget G94 core after selling the much larger and more expensive G92 core cheap to battle the HD38xx-series. Anybody buying the 2GB 9600GT's should be given asshat's with the card.

Just 2GB? They should've added something like Turbocache, all of which passes through a 256-bit memory bus. :rolleyes:

I'm amazed why they didn't come up with a 1.5 GB version of the 8800 Ultra yet.

because they stopped making the G80 in January prolly

I was referring to the period when it was in production. Someone should have made a 1.5 GB (12 x 128 MB banks) to counter the RV680 launch. Either with the G80 GTX or Ultra.

this card have a market part for that was created?

Wait a second...please correct me if I am wrong.


Your all saying that 256-bit is pointless as it is too slow for 2GB of VRAM. Doesn't normal RAM use a 64 bit bus (and 128-bit in dual channel)?

If I am correct in what I am saying, then this card would be GREAT for CAD work as your getting (in effect) Quad channel RAM speeds. Also, being clocked at 1800Mhz is a lot faster than the normal 800 or 1066mhz standard DDR2 RAM which is basically standard. (Meaning less lag whilst rendering those awesome 3d objects :D)

We all know its not meant for gamers. It won't benefit them; end of story. Also, don't say that people who use CAD should go for a Quadro or FireGL because someone who isn't a professional or a company generally can't afford a $1500 graphics card.

hmmm 2 gb seems a bit much. Ram should be relative to how awesome everything else is. It just seems to be 2gb on a crappy handicapped card. :nutkick:

I can't believe everyone.

When was to much to much?

its always good to have more than you need, but theres no arguing that 2gb is unnecessary if 1gb is...

Amusing how with every increase the very same discussion is started. Yes 2Gb is pointless now, and probably on this chip. Though in 1 or 2 years it isn't. And complaining that companies introduce things before you require it isn't really that useful.

what i think is that by the time 1-2gb will be usefull, the 9600GT GPU will be too weak to accomodate it all, and the 256 bit bus too narrow....