jimmy.desiderio.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
> Is having 640mb and 768mb of RAM a bit off for a graphics card? I've
> always known them to go from 256mb, 512mb to 1024mb like ATI cards.
> Clearly Nvidia is the best card, but why the different ram sizes?
> Also, the bit size too. It's 384-bit compared to the 512-bit ATI.
> But they went from 256-bit.
>
> I'm just curious as to why Nvidia is raising their bit interfaces and
> ram sizes this way.
>
Looking at the back of a video card can explain a few things (but not much).
EVGA 768-P2-N831-AR GeForce 8800GTX 768MB 384-bit GDDR
http://images10.newegg.com/NeweggImage/productimage/14-130-072-14.jpg
There are twelve "sites" replicated on the back of the video card.
Three sides of the GPU, appears to interface to four chips.
A picture of the bare card, front view, could confirm that.
384-bit divided by 12 equals 32 bits wide per chip. Hey, that is a
nice power-of-two number, so no one can be upset about that.
768MB total memory divided by 12 equals 64MB per chips. Again,
no one can complain about that not being a nice power-of-two number.
So if you count the number of memory chips, and do a few divisions,
it all works out in some way.
The wider you make the memory, the more potential memory bandwidth.
Make it a little wider, and you can offer a few more gigabytes/sec than
the competition. Almost like mammoth TV sets, where one company makes
a 107" TV, so the other company makes a 108" TV, then goes to a trade
show and puts a card on top of it that reads "World's Biggest". Until
the next trade show...
Paul
>> Stay informed about: Unorthodox ram sizes and bit interfaces on GeForces?