ATI's Radeon X800 XL 512MB - A toe in the 512MB pool
by Anand Lal Shimpi on May 4, 2005 9:27 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
Without a doubt, there will be a time when 512MB cards will be necessary. As we mentioned earlier, more local GPU memory is never a bad thing, it just has to be taken advantage of, and that time is not now.Performance across the majority of the games that we tested remained unchanged, even at their highest detail settings. We were a bit surprised that there was such a tangible benefit to the 512MB card running Half Life 2, but in the end, we attained better performance out of a similarly priced X850 XT with only 256MB of memory, even under Half Life 2.
ATI's desire to make their first 512MB part based on the X800 XL doesn't appear to make much sense either. The large amount of on-board memory would seem best fit for a GPU that was capable of running at resolutions and detail settings that would see some performance benefit from the additional memory.
We are worried that ATI doesn't have their users as Priority One, given the level of confusion that the X800 XL 512MB will insert into their product line. Without a significantly lower price tag, the new 512MB board inadvertently competes with ATI's X850 XT, which is clearly the better performer. With a 30% fill rate advantage, even in future games that do eat up more memory, we'd expect the X850 XT to still outperform the X800 XL 512MB. The fact of the matter is that developers aren't going to leave the majority of the gamers in the dark when it comes to implementing features and improving image quality. We wouldn't expect 512MB graphics cards to be the target for any development until the next generation of GPUs actually begins getting into the hands of gamers later this year. At that point, you're better off picking up a new GPU with more memory rather than one based on the year-old R42x architecture.
We can't help but feel a little puzzled by today's launch, but at the same time, very curious. Not so much about the X800 XL 512MB itself, but whether or not ATI will hold true to their word this time around. The X800 XL 512MB had better arrive later this month; otherwise, ATI will have just dug themselves a deeper hole and this time, it will have been for no actual benefit.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
70 Comments
View All Comments
WT - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
#17,*drool* I'll one up you here and get a second 1GB 5200, run them in SLI, then I'll have 2GB of GPU bandwidth !!!
That would kick, ermmm, no .. waitaminute ...
MuhahahaAaAHAHAA !!!
*sarcasm sensors malfunctioning*
fishbits - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
Maybe the sole purpose of the card is to get some honest benches under Doom 3 where ATI ties/beats a comparably-priced offering from Nvidia, and get as much PR out of it as possible. Sounds like there's a lot to sort out, but maybe this does happen under some tests in uncompressed mode.Anyway, the purpose wouldn't be to sell the particular card, as to squelch the "OMG, Nvidia pwns in Doom3!" so that those who buy a card based on one game/anecdote won't shy away from current ATI products. Fanboys for either company are a steady source of revenue, so it won't do to miss out on a new (vid chip/FPS) generation of them.
Lot of speculation on my part, but the product is definitely befuddling otherwise.
Phantronius - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
Ahhh silly silly ATI, when will you learn, in Soviet Russia, GPU memory RAMS you!!Sunbird - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
I'm wondering when the fx 5200 with 1GB memory (64bit memory interface of course) is coming out :pET - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
More data points: Beyond3D got the same results as Anandtech; DriverHeaven got an increase in speed, but only because its 256MB speed was much lower than the rest.ET - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
#13, don't judge the waste of money on Doom3 results. There's obviously something fishy here.ET - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
Right, #11. Shows I should read more carefully. That's really strange. T-Break also got the same results as Anandtech. Perhaps Carmack made a mistake and the modes are mislabeled? I mean, it's not as if he could test them. :)bob661 - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
I'm really surprised at these 512MB results. I thought at least the Doom 3 benchmarks would be better. This is just a waste of money.CrystalBay - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
I think nVidia's recently launched 6200/512MB is even a more peculiar release.mbhame - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link
Guys, Extremetech said they *originally* tried Ultra but the graph is based on High Quality mode....which further confuses things here. :(