• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Will current genertion video cards soon have 512mb of memory?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
There was actually talk some time back about having a specific socket for GPUs. But the industry, especially graphics hardware, moves so fast that it would basically be a pointless endevour, and now that GPUs have gotten so complex, and have so many pins, it wouldn't be cost-effective either. It might have been feasable, back when GPUs had 64-bit busses, but not now, no way. There still might be room for this sort of thing in the mobile arena, allowing laptop users to pop out one GPU chip and upgrade to another. Part of the problem too, is the memory. I'm not sure how many people here are aware, but adding sockets instead of directly soldering the chips on, can add propegation delays to the memory bus lines on the order of more than a nanosecond. When you are talking about ultra-high-speed GDD3 memory that has a cycle time of only 2.2ns in and of itself, forcing it to run at ~4ns because the video RAM is socketed, would not be a wise move.

I actually have wondered, though, about basically building the video-card into the motherboard itself. Considering the power draw, and timing requirements, and cost ratios, that idea is really starting to make sense. These days, main system CPU and RAM, is simply an accessory sub-system and cache for the GPU and video RAM. Maybe it's time for the design of PCs to more closely resemble "disposable" consoles, with fixed video hardware, video RAM, CPU, and system RAM? Except that PCs would have some additional expansion capability, and allow attachment of additional storage devices.

Ironically, that's basically what MS has planned, for the "future of the PC", something akin to the XBox, but with loads of USB, etc., ports for expansion, along with - of course - mandatory DRM controls for media files and playback.
 
You can already get 512mb+ video cards they are workstation cards though. Like a Wildcat Realizm 200, Wildcat VP990, PCIE Quadro FX4400
 
There are just too many core + memory combinations to allow a standardized socket to take form. CPUs are still very necessary for physics and AI calculations of games. Graphics is only one half of the equation.
 
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: usernamemax20charact
Originally posted by: gururu
before you know it, we'll be plugging our motherboards into our video cards!

Or we'll have external video cards with a HUGE heatsink and fan.

I've often wondered why they don't put a "GPU socket" on motherboards, along with GPU memory slots. I suppose the pin layout of the GPUs is a problem. It would be nice though. 🙂

They have that -- its called an AGP slot. 90% of the cost of the video card is in the CPU and Memory itself.
 
Originally posted by: Kobra
512MB Video Cards are still about a year off from release, possibly longer. They won't be "Standard" for probably another 3-5 years... Hell, its only recently that 64MB stopped being "Standard", and now 128mb is.. You'd be hard pressed to find a game using 128 as it is...

Unreal Tournament 2k3
Unreal Tournament 2k4
Farcry
Doom 3 @ medium settings.
Thief 3
Deus Ex 2
Even Call of Duty @ 1600x1200 8x/8x


Youre right Kobra that WAS hard!!!!1
 
Back
Top