No More Memory Bandwidth

Again, we have a 256 bit (4x 64 bit) memory interface to GDDR3 memory. The local graphics memory setup is not significantly different from the 6800 series of cards and only runs slightly faster at a 1.2 GHz effective data rate. This will work out in NVIDIA's favor as long as newer games continue to put a heavier burden on pixel shader processing. NVIDIA sees texture bandwidth as outweighing color and z bandwidth in the not too distant future. This doesn't mean the quest after ever increasing bandwidth will stop; it just means that the reasons we will need more bandwidth will change.

A good example of the changing needs of graphics cards is Half-Life 2. While the game runs very well even on older graphics cards like the 9800 Pro, the design is such that increased memory bandwidth is far less important than having more shader processing power. This is why we see the 6600GT cards significantly outperform the 9800 Pro. Even more interesting is that in our testing, we found that enabling 4xAA on a 9800 Pro didn't affect performance of HL2 much at all, while increasing the resolution from 1024x768 to 1280x1024 had a substantial impact on frame rates. If the HL2 model is a good example of the future of 3D engines, NVIDIA's decision to increase pixel processing power while leaving memory bandwidth for the future makes a lot of sense.

On an interesting side note, the performance tests in this article are mostly based around 1600x1200 and higher resolutions. Memory usage at 2048x1536 with 32bit color and z-buffer runs a solid 144MB for double buffered rendering with 4x AA. This makes a 256MB card a prerequisite for this setup, but depending on the textures, render targets and other local memory usage, 256MB may be a little short. PCI Express helps a little to alleviate any burden placed on system memory, but it is conceivable that some games could get choppier when swapping in and out large textures, normal maps, and the like.

We don't feel that ATI's 512MB X850 really brings anything necessary to the table, but with this generation we could start to see a real use for 512MB of local memory. MRTs, larger textures, normal maps, vertex textures, huge resolutions, and a lack of hardware compression for fp16 and fp32 textures all mean that we are on the verge of seeing games push memory usage way up. Processing these huge stores of data require GPUs powerful enough to utilize them efficiently. The G70 begins to offer that kind of power. For the majority of today's games, we are fine with 256MB of RAM, but moving into the future it's easy to see how more would help.

In addition to these issues, a 512MB card would be a wonderful fit for Dual-Link DVI. This would make the part a nice companion to Apple's largest Cinema Display (which is currently beyond the maximum resolution supported by the GeForce 7800 GTX). In case anyone is curious, a double buffered 4xAA 32bit color+z framebuffer at 2560x1600 is about 190MB.

In our briefings on G70, we were told that every part of the chip has been at least slightly updated from NV4x, but the general architecture and feature set is the same. There have been a couple of more significant updates as well, namely the increased performance capability of a single shader pipe and the addition of transparency antialiasing. Let's take a look at these factors right now.

The Pipeline Overview Inside The Pipes
Comments Locked

127 Comments

View All Comments

  • Regs - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    Yikes @ the graphs lol.

    I just came close to pushing the button to order one of these but then I said...what games can't play on a 6800GT at 16x12 res? There is none. Far Cry was the only game that comes close to doing it.

    Bravo to Nvidia, his and boo @ lagging game developers.
  • bob661 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    #19
    Are you new to this market or do you have a short memory? Don't you remember that the initial 6800 Ultra's cost around $700-800? I sure as hell do. Why is everyone complaining about pricing? These are premium video cards and you will pay a premium price to buy them.
  • Barneyk - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    Yeah, not a single comment on any of the benchmarks, what is up with that?

    There were alot of wierd scenarios there, why is there NO performance increase in SLI some of the time?
    And why is 6800Ultra SLI faster then 7800GTX SLI??

    Alot of wierd stuff, and not a singel comment or analysis about it, I always read most new tests here on AT first becasue its usually the best, but this review was a double boogey to say the least...
  • Dukemaster - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    @21: The score of the X850XT PE in Wolfenstein still looks messed up to me...
  • shabby - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    Ya some of the scores dont make much sense, 7800 sli loosing to a single 7800?
  • yacoub - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    Hey, looks great! $350 and you've got a buyer here!
  • Lifted - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    Guys, they simply reversed the 6800 Ultra SLI and 7800 GTX SLI in all of the 1600 x 1200 - 4x AA graphs.

    Now everthing is kosher again.
  • Johnmcl7 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    To 18 - I have to admit, I didn't bother looking closely at them, seeing the X850XT supposedly beating all the other cards by such a margin at those resolutions showed they were completely screwed up! I didn't notice the performance increase as you go up the resolution, maybe it's something I missed on my own X850XT? ;) I wish...that would be a neat feature, your performance increases as your resolution increases.

    I agree it needs pulled down and checked, not to be harsh on AT but this isn't the first time the bar graphs have been wrong - I would rather wait for a review that has been properly finished and checked rather than read a rushed one, as it stands it's no use to me because I have no idea if any of the performance figures are genuine.

    John
  • RyDogg1 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    Wow, who exactly is paying for these video cards to warrant the pricing?
  • Lonyo - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    To #14, the X850XT performance INCREASED by 33% from 1600x1200 to 2048x1536 according to the grahics, so to me that just screams BULLSH!T.
    I think the review needs taking down, editing, and then being put up again.
    Or fixed VERY quickly.
    AT IMO has let people down a bit this time round, not the usual standard.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now