So this card is all differnt kinds of pawnage... it really is a shame about the suspected-expected price.
Printable View
So this card is all differnt kinds of pawnage... it really is a shame about the suspected-expected price.
seems to be smaller than the plx chip on 4870x2... could be a new chip though
PLX
IDT
Hydra
could be any of those 3... but i think most likely its plx...
How fast is PLX, when compared with SLI? :)
its the same... i have yet to see nf200 do more than act as a pciE switch, which plx and idt can do too... :shrug:
Thanks... :)
Damn nice card. Asus must also apply a step up program, like eVGA, along with this card to get one :)
I'll pre order it for $600, everybody can dream right :D
:hump:
I'm speechless...
+2Quote:
Originally Posted by '[XC
It's a shame that nVidia did not have "The balls" or "Can O' Whoopass" to release this Monster of a Card as the reference GTX295 Design. I think it might even give the 4890X2 a run for it's money....
But being this late and mega expensive (and extremely rare) I cannot see many of them being shifted as eyes will start to turn towards the first DirectX11 GPU's
Good effort by ASUS.... now if only BFG and eVGA did the same :up:
John
"Dont ask me why" is a heck of a reason to state that it helps and im out of the loop :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
No revire/article I've read showed improvements going from 1Gb to 2Gb per chip, meaning the bottleneck was somewhere alse.
1Gb is not even fully utilized yet in almost every game... According to all what I've read most games are fine with 512Mb, with a few of them requiring 1Gb, mostly at high res w/ AA.
I would like to see factual evidence before I believe 2Gb per chip will bring any improvements over 1Gb in games.
Anyone care to point me some reviews/articles showing otherwise ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonucci
screw all you guys with tiny monitors! at 2560x1600 the more video memory the better!
Looks like a coffin of heat
Show me reputable hardware sites reviews or articles results showing improvements over 1Gb per chip even on a 30" with AA pleeeeeaaase :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
Word of mouth dont really convince me hmmk :D
k, my bad, i should have been more detailled :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Tonucci
check anandtechs dual tri quad sli/xfire articles, same for xbitlabs, and youll see that xfire and sli scale a lot better with 1gb over 512mb cards, and with 1gb cards there is much less or no stuttering too. thats with 2 cards... with 3 cards you see that scaling drops for the same games that needed more than 512mb to scale well with 2 cards... its no proof, but it looked pretty clear to me back when i read those articles that having more than 1gb does help in tri and quad sli, and possibly even dual vga setups at high res and high aa.
i dont think asus slapped that much mem on there just for the sake of it, they must be sure that it either helps now or will most likely help soon... same with all the 1.8gb cards that several nvidia partners have launched a while ago.
mhhhh googled but couldnt find much, seems nobody has compared the new 1.8gb 260 cards with the older .9gb 260 cards in sli, let alone tri sli.... :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonucci
all i found was this:
gtx260 896mb vs 1792mb
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-82...vs-1792MB.html
wic+coh show a boost that is too big to be a result of clockspeeds... its not much but its a hint that some games use more than 1gb in high res with high aa, and in sli that limitation should be bigger.
Im guilty of running an oc'ed 4850 1Gb on a small monitor, therefore im no vMEM overkill hater ok :D
Just saying that I've not seen anithing showing 2Gb improvements over 1Gb so far, even triple SLI on a 30" w/ AA.
I recon it may help in a select few scenarious and makes it more future proof :up:
quad sli will be even more expensive then gtx295 standard quad sli
its still going to be a very long time before that resolution becomes standard. 1920x1200 or 1080 is under $300, but 2560x1600 is still over $1000. i was gonna get one of those gateway 30" when the price came down to about $700, but they were discontinued (lowest was $940), and now the other ones are overpriced $1200, and they havnt come down in price for the last 6 months. no idea why these are so damn stubborn to move down like the rest of technology does.Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
I want a 40" 2560x1600 :D
is it out yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
What do you expect when one requires Dual-link DVI and the other one doesn't.
No TV supports 2560x1600 for the same reason.
4x the price for 1.4x the panel size, cost should not be more than double even if limited units are being created. And almost every video card has duel link dvi, and theve had them for years. but NO tv has any cable that will run such a resolution anyway, not a good idea to compare the two. the industry will adjust as things become more mainstream, and duel link dvi is mainstream, but 1000$ monitors are not, for a reason of their own, not cause other products are lacking anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
its not just panel SIZE though, its panel quality too....all the 2560x1600 monitors use IPS panels and IPS 1920x1200's are still 5-600 bucks...technically it is pretty much double
also, im pretty sure 2560x1600 30" has higher pixel density than 1920x1200 24" (aka DPI?)...higher density = lower yield for LCD glass manufacturers = higher price...also have to take that into account
yup, pretty much sums it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlazinTiger
Are you guys forgetting a little something called HDMI?Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
DVI ftl :p:
That's the holy grail right there, well 50" for me but yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
2gb vs 1gb @ 1920x1080 - cnc generals zero hour never looked better
and the 2gb gtx285 does more particles/detail/load than the 1gb gtx285
i aint going back to 1gbs ill keepem around for "physics"
2gb: perfect for rts games :toast: