Any other 2GB nvidia cards?

N

nonlnear

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
3,273
Are there any nvidia flavor cards in the wild other than the Sparkle 9600GT?

I'm interested in getting a ton of RAM for Matlab/CUDA use, so for large problems I really can use as much RAM as I can squeeze onto one card. Games are completely secondary to me.
 
You can get another 2gb by taping a 2gb usb stick onto the card. Hope this helps.
 
what about the 295? It's got 1792MB. I mean, i know that's for gaming, but it's close to the 2gb you're lookin for.
 
Mnx4 said:
what about the 295? It's got 1792MB. I mean, i know that's for gaming, but it's close to the 2gb you're lookin for.
Click to expand...

True there's nothing magical about 2Gb to me, but the problem with the 295 is that it's a dual chip solution. The CUDA implementations currently out there (that I am able to use, that is!) would AFAIK treat the 295 as two separate GPUs.
 
I didn't even know there was a 2gb Nvidia card. Only memory matters not performance? Cause a 9600 is pretty bad.
 
Le037 said:
I didn't even know there was a 2gb Nvidia card. Only memory matters not performance? Cause a 9600 is pretty bad.
Click to expand...

I was just wondering if there was anything else out there. I agree that the 9600 is a pretty sad GPU to tack 2GB onto. I'd much rather get a 260 or a 280 with 2GB on it. I'm under the impression that nobody is making such a beast.

For large data sets, memory size matters a lot more than performance. Once I start moving data off the card for every iteration of a simulation, I am no longer GPU limited. So in some cases, a 9600 with 2GB could be a lot faster than a 512MB 9800. I just can't bring myself to buy it at that price point when the 9600 is so far behind the curve. They don't even have a 2GB 9800... :(
 
Some card companies believe that if they make one of the specs have really large numbers, they will sell more, regardless of whether that larger spec actually means anything. 2GB on a 9600GT is meaningless. Even 1GB on a 9600GT is of questionable value, because you're limited by things other than the amount of RAM. You aren't going to be running these at 2560x1600 - you need a GTX280 or better for that.

Let's put it this way, how good do you think a 1GB 9400GT will be? (And guess who makes it?)
 
sonicboom said:
Get the Quadro cards from nvidia. Their q FX 5800 model has 4gigs of memory.
Click to expand...

I would get a Tesla c1060 if I could afford it (which is still a good deal cheaper than the FX 5800), but I'm trying to keep the total tab for a box under $700(ish) here! :p
 
evilsofa said:
Some card companies believe that if they make one of the specs have really large numbers, they will sell more, regardless of whether that larger spec actually means anything. 2GB on a 9600GT is meaningless. Even 1GB on a 9600GT is of questionable value, because you're limited by things other than the amount of RAM. You aren't going to be running these at 2560x1600 - you need a GTX280 or better for that.

Let's put it this way, how good do you think a 1GB 9400GT will be? (And guess who makes it?)
Click to expand...

I'm not running games. My uses are in a completely different world from anything you are describing. In CUDA land, there are plenty of uses for large volumes of video RAM which wouldn't make much sense in gamer land. (That's why they make different cards with very different specs for the two markets.) To use the terms you brought up: essentially I'm running tasks which are analogous to much higher resolutions than 2560x1600. If you aren't concerned about real-time frame rates, it's not necessarily a stupid thing to do on a 9600 (or whatever). To me, the difference between 0.01fps and 0.5 fps (that's putting Matlab compute times into roughly analogous framerate terms) really matters, whereas to a gamer, both speeds are equally useless.

Anyways, I'm well aware that 2GB on even a 9600 is kind of a joke. That's why I'm not going to be buying the card. I was just thinking that if somebody out there had bothered to throw 2GB on even a 9600 (never mind that it's not a very sensible idea), that some manufacturer going for e-penis sales might have done the same on a 9800 or 260/280.
 
Yeah I've always wondered why someone never made a super rare and expensive GTX285/GTX280 Ultra Deluxe Super Edition with 2GB of ram.

Hell at 2560x1600 at 8xAA+ or higher I'm pretty sure 1GB is a limitation. Then again I could be wrong. I just know there would be a market for such a card. Unlike a 9600 a GTX285 makes a hell of a lot more sense to add 2GB even though it would still be crazy.
 
I would guess Nvidia discourages that sort of thing so It can maintain product separation with the Quadro's.
 
nonlnear said:
Interesting... and frustrating. I was hoping the first poster with info on a different 2GB card would be from the 260/280 series, not an 8- or 9- series. (And it isn't even a 9800! :mad: )
Click to expand...
8800gt=9800gt

You can flash it to a 9800 if it makes you feel better
 
Imagine how many images you could have open in Photoshop CS4 with 2 gigs of vram :eek:
 
But this is incredible why have I never heard of this?????

I wonder if they'll make a 285 with 2gb ram......actually scrap that thought....

WHY haven't they made a 285 with 2gb ram???
 
nonlnear said:
I'm not running games. My uses are in a completely different world from anything you are describing. In CUDA land, there are plenty of uses for large volumes of video RAM which wouldn't make much sense in gamer land. (That's why they make different cards with very different specs for the two markets.) To use the terms you brought up: essentially I'm running tasks which are analogous to much higher resolutions than 2560x1600. If you aren't concerned about real-time frame rates, it's not necessarily a stupid thing to do on a 9600 (or whatever). To me, the difference between 0.01fps and 0.5 fps (that's putting Matlab compute times into roughly analogous framerate terms) really matters, whereas to a gamer, both speeds are equally useless.

Anyways, I'm well aware that 2GB on even a 9600 is kind of a joke. That's why I'm not going to be buying the card. I was just thinking that if somebody out there had bothered to throw 2GB on even a 9600 (never mind that it's not a very sensible idea), that some manufacturer going for e-penis sales might have done the same on a 9800 or 260/280.
Click to expand...

QFT

I do a lot of video editing as well and having a Series 8 or 9 card with at least 512MB of memory is essential (even though I'm using a crap 6600LE right now...). Be warned however that the card in the first post uses GDDR2 which my slow down transcoding and encoding performance w/ Premiere Pro CS4 and/or Badaboom.

Trust me, more memory for video editing in Premiere Pro CS/2/3/4 and After Effects CS2/3/4 is essential, even if it is rather slow memory.

But yeah, good luck gaming on a card like this. ;)
 
Citizen86 said:
Imagine how many images you could have open in Photoshop CS4 with 2 gigs of vram :eek:
Click to expand...

Photoshop (all versions) use only the CPU and system memory, not the GPU nor vram.

However, if you edit using the 3D functions, only 64-128MB of vram is needed at most. So any card in the last 6 years will get the job done for this function in Photoshop.
 
While it's true you can do bigger matrices with more video ram, it's also true that you need much more, since they are square entities. So to double the size of your matrix, if it were square, you would need 4 times the memory. You probably know all this anyway. I have not seen the Jetway anywhere for sale so far, and I can understand why your reluctant to get an 8800, since it's an older compute revision.

Anyway, my suggestion is to get the fastest link you can from main memory to the video memory, since main memory will always be larger, and feeds the video memory. That is likely to be the X58 chip set with a PCIe 2.0 video card, though I have not checked what's going on in the AMD world.

Good luck!
 
Red Falcon said:
Photoshop (all versions) use only the CPU and system memory, not the GPU nor vram.

However, if you edit using the 3D functions, only 64-128MB of vram is needed at most. So any card in the last 6 years will get the job done for this function in Photoshop.
Click to expand...

Umm you're wrong there, CS4 uses GPU acceleration for images now.
 
ati cards don't have cuda support right? I was thinking get a 1gb ati card...since it has gddr5 ram
and would be faster for your application than a 1GB gddr3 nvidia card...but not sure about the whole
ati cuda compatbility fiasco.
 
Brashen said:
Umm you're wrong there, CS4 uses GPU acceleration for images now.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and I've read user experiences since beta of CS4 about how with 256mb vram, they could have 3-4 high-res photos open and before the GPU acceleration worked, Photos after that would still open, but there would be no GPU acceleration. 512 mb was like 6-7.
 
ATI doesnt no, but CS4 (ati or nvidia) still uses acceleration to assist in real time zooming, it really has nothing to do with how many images are open guys, it is assisting in real time zooming and some GUI stuff.

in the poast i could open as many images as my SYSTEM ram would let me with out crawling and now i can do the same...
 
MrGuvernment said:
ATI doesnt no, but CS4 (ati or nvidia) still uses acceleration to assist in real time zooming, it really has nothing to do with how many images are open guys, it is assisting in real time zooming and some GUI stuff.

in the poast i could open as many images as my SYSTEM ram would let me with out crawling and now i can do the same...
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? The new 3d acceleration does more than real-time zooming. It allows the picture to still look good at any zoom rate, it allows the "flick" motion to get around your picture when zoomed in. Do all those things still work with pictures open until your system ram is full?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top