MSI Prepares 2GB Version of GeForce 9600 GT

[wolf]

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....

 

[newtekie1]

Maybe usefull on a rendering card, but on a standard desktop card it is useless. Even if you do rendering like CAD, since this card isn't built for the purpose, you won't see the benefits of such a huge amount of memory.

 

[btarunr]

You'd need a large memory only if you have insanely high resolution textures when rendering. Other than that for a typical CAD scenario like say modeling a car prototype, there's more of geometry than textures, even then engineers would use a FireGL or Quadro.

 

[EarlZ]

I even doubt your CAD can use 512mb of the VRAM, mostly is system memory that is required and minimal VRAM for view port rendring.

 

[mdm-adph]

You know what I'm thinking? I'm thinking RAM must be cheap as hell right now if companies are throwing 2GB of it (that'll never be utilized) on mid-range graphic cards.

 

[btarunr]

But yes, a few tech-illiterates do judge a video-card by the amount of memory it comes with and board-vendors exploit this ignorance and bring such products out:

"Yo I've got a 2 GB video-card" (pseudo-epenis touches the sky)

 

[Solaris17]

i actually really think i might get one...it would prolly render faster maybe ill sli that with my card instead of just getting another of my exact card.

 

[btarunr]

i actually really think i might get one...it would prolly render faster maybe ill sli that with my card instead of just getting another of my exact card.

But wouldn't putting two cards of dissimilar memory amounts cause the card with the higher memory to operate at the amount of memory of the lower one? Just asking because that's what happens when you CF a HD3850 256M with a HD3850 512M. Is it the same for NV SLI?

 

[Solaris17]

not that i know of i think it only applies to clock speeds.


EDIT yup appears your right...however reading it on the nvidia site it says you have to force it to use for example if i had 1 6600 128mb they say its best to use another 6600 128mb but if i got a 256mb one id need to force the second card to use 128 for optimal performance soo im kinda confised.

 

[thebeephaha]

Solaris, you can't SLI cards with different RAM anymore, they disabled that with the latest gen of drivers. I tried it with two 7950's (one with 512, the other 256) and it wouldn't let me enable.

 

[yogurt_21]

it's not the bus that can't use the 2GB, it's the current games and the core. by the time we have games that will use the 2GB of vram the 9600gt's core won't be able to run it. (much like ATI's 512mb x800xl a few series back). but seriously many people run 8GB system ram on a 128-bit bus, it isn't the bus width, it's the core.

 

[jocksteeluk]

with memory prices at record low prices, Msi has taken the opportunity to make a a good premium return on a cheap piece of ram.

 

[Grimskull]

Solitaire on this card will be amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[WarEagleAU]

2008 on my comp with my specs doesnt really kill my memory (ACAD 2008 that is). This card would be awesome but Id take a ATI Rage, Nvidia Quadra or Matrox card designated for CAD work over this any day.

 

[TheGuruStud]

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 )

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.

Regular system ram is incredible slow compared to video ram (think ns not just raw MHz), therefore, 256 bit would be a huge bottleneck IF you could use the 2 GB (or anything over 512 really). Plus, the GPU itself is obviously not powerful enough to push textures that can fill up more than the 512 MB anyway.

I would get an 8800 GT/GTS and load the quadro drivers on it and see how that works.

 

[candle_86]

well for 3d rendering using massive texture sizes say 20000x20000 it would work great, but honestly why would you use those kinda textures.

As for system memory, yes its a 64bit dual channel or 64bit single channel. But it gets even more complicated, thats whay quad channel is showing up. Think of it like this, each memory slot access a single 64bit controller, or 2x64bit controllers for dual channel. If you have one ram stick for a 64bit or 2 ram sticks for dual channel both use 64bit bandwith, this is why a single ram chip in single channel of the same raw speed and timings ect can tie the dual channel dual stick. But who does that these days anymore?

Before dual channel running 2-4 sticks was the norm and it divides that bus between each slot that is accessing the system, say you have 4 sticks on a 64bit bus, and each is being used to store information at the same moment, so they all are talking on a 16bit bus. Similar to dual channel, 4 sticks in dual channel forces each stick to talk at 32bit instead of 64bit. This is why its always better for dual channel to use 2 sticks, and for single channel to use a single large stick, you get the most alloted bandwith.

 

[Scyphe]

Comparing graphics cards with motherboards is just silly. The memory handling is totally and utterly different, and used for different purposes. The 9600GT 2GB is a waste of money since the GPU is too weak to handle anything that could ever fill 2GB of VRAM (in 2-3 years time). I seriously doubt people working with workstation level graphics (CAD, 3DSMAX etc.) would go for a simple 9600GT, a slimmed down budget variant of the 8800-series.

 

[Wile E]

Comparing graphics cards with motherboards is just silly. The memory handling is totally and utterly different, and used for different purposes. The 9600GT 2GB is a waste of money since the GPU is too weak to handle anything that could ever fill 2GB of VRAM (in 2-3 years time). I seriously doubt people working with workstation level graphics (CAD, 3DSMAX etc.) would go for a simple 9600GT, a slimmed down budget variant of the 8800-series.

Depends. Not all people using CAD are professionals. This is far cheaper than the Quadro with similar specs.

 

[cmberry20]

I would get an 8800 GT/GTS and load the quadro drivers on it and see how that works.

And you'll end up with a standard 8800 GT/GTS.

Quadro/FireGL cards are almost identical to their desktop/gaming cousins. However, NVidia/ATI add a few more resistors/coding that enables said cards to be fully optimised for CAD OpenGL standards. So, unless you phiscally mod a 8800GT, you cannot make it into a Quadro equivalent card.
However, in the past, the ATI 9*00 range could be modded at the driver level to convert them to FireGL cards - kinda like the 9500 to 9700 pipemod hack. But its been a long time since I've seen a driver hack for a Desktop>CAD card.

 

[mandelore]

"Yo I've got a 2 GB video-card" (pseudo-epenis touches the sky)

then goes limp realising it actually means shit bugger all