This is a novelty

This will bring some perfomance improvements on 1600x1200 resolutions and higher, since they are GDDR4 modules, I expect somewhat a big jump.

I hope that by that time AMD releases a new driver cause they really need to improve them if they want to top out at the benchmarks. The card has the power but is AMD that doesnt know how to use its full potential by not having a good driver program.

Well, why do you need so much memory on desktop cards? Unless planning to shoot on other spaces with the same card, which is not a bad idea after all. And the card is well powered too, so, here is my blessing. May Inos bless your path HD 2900 XT!

How is another 512MB going to make this card perform any better?

Still won't beat an 8800GTX.

the Quadro FX5600 is a desktop card and it has 1.5gb of video memory...

I mean except to grope clueless people and those rich know-it-all kiddies out of their money, I don't see any reason why they would come up with this product.

I mean lets face it, doubling up the memory won't magically make this card perform significatly faster than the 512MB brethren.

But well ... companies need to make money to satisfy their stockholders (or make their CEO richer ... lol).

well, i am wondering how much this will improve the card's performance. whether it will be enough to topple the top nvidia at present, is yet to be seen....

Sooner than later I'll move to a nice 1080p tv and will move my desktop from the home office to the living room. How much impact will extra memory have on playing games at HD resolutions? Would be nice if THG would start including those in benchmarking results.

Nothing any normal gamer does needs 1gb of video card memory, this is just a gimmick imo.

Memory is the single largest roadblock for GPGPU programming, GPUs are so fast that if they are going to perform Supercomputing applications, having between 1GB and 8GB may mean the difference between adoption and sticking around in the gaming industry. While at the last SeWHiP (Southeast Wisconsin High Performance) Computing workshop, memory was a concern with the GPU and our group the Fireseedgroup being able to help researchers drastically improve performance. I think it would be great if we could also experiment with cards that have 2Gb or more of memory, or if there actually was a HyperTransport bus between Graphics cards and system memory.

I dream of a world where NUMA is viable for the GPU/CPU bridge over hypertransport.

"How is another 512MB going to make this card perform any better?"

It depends on what you're doing. Does "High resolution textures" mean anything? Halo 3, other future RTS games DX10 graphics cranked all the way up... Go read about it.

And P. Freaking!! S. the 8800 GTX sucks for HD viewing because it taxes the CPU. Where is HDMI port? The 8500/8600 is better for HD processing. So you already need to sell that premature crap of a DX10 card. Sorry but your 640 plus wasn't worth it after all not then or now. And currently the 8500 needs vista to make that work. So the 7 month head start means nothing.

If memory meant nothing then we'd all be using 64 or even 8 meg. Give me a break...

You're maybe right... You!! word processing, excel spread sheet wielding chumps don't need the graphics memory. Just keep pondering in thought about its uses.

HD gaming, viewing and near future etc needs it

You who don't understand and don't want too... Please keep your 9800 ATI or that over priced crap 8800GTX card, you've either maxed out your knowledge or have no desire to gain any...

The only thing missing and taht is not disclosed here is if these cards will have the new chipset. These new chips perform the majority of the HD processing load. Hold out until then you know for sure, because without it your CPU performs a big chuck of work. ATI or any company has to release memory, speed, connectivity and functionality to get my money. I'm not "moses" you can't half ass it with me and make me a fan boy, my dollar means a lot and I'll hold on to it until you the stop gap is over.

These chips were used in the agena demo less than a month ago, which is why the agena demo http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31977/135/ was a farce.

Speaking of which I'm still waiting on losers to answer: Please come out of hiding...
1) Raj
2) showoffjp

Most of them are Intel fanboys :P
If 1GB isn't needed so why the 8800GTX have almost that?? right....

Better memory (DDR3 Vs. DDR4), Additional memory (1 Gig Vs. 512 Meg), faster clocked memory (1650 Vs. 2100Mhz), master GPU (740 Vs. 825 Mhz)

And why are they wasting time doing SLI and crossfire? more novelty...

In fact I bet you losers are even contemplating going back to AGP... LOL

I mean x16 has to be a huge novelty to you guys as well... right?

PCI Express 2.0, which doubles bandwidth and increases slot power supply from 75 W to 300 W

Why oh why is intel doing such a novelty? the dullards are pondering..

OMG you guys are too funny...

So if the 512MB version was a heater, this would make your home a greenhouse?

Wonder if there is a Jacket to Match. Maybe some boxers too.

"This is Silly"
-ARE YOU MAD? Of course it does. My 7950gx2 has 1 gig of memory and it struggles (42 fps average) on oblivion at 1920 by 1200, with all settings maxed out. The more memory, the easier the card can render bigger frames (1200p or 1600p).

That is a workstation card, it's not considered in the desktop segment of sales. And from what I remember it's basically the 8800GTX card with double the GDDR3 density.

it won't werk with games, it's made for openGL frame rendering in 3d CAD/CAM appz and the such... it would be totally worthless for your typical desktop user. maybe for a novice/poor/hobby drafter... but that's about it...

Anybody saying 1gb is too much. It has already been demonstrated that 768 MB of memory is beneficial at higher resolutions in graphics intensive games. 1GB seems to me to be the next logical progression. Might as well go ahead and get the technology out there. Very soon there will be a practical demand for it. Thats how the market works and how it ought to work.

Why beef-up a card that can't outperform the 8800GTS? Where's the GTX-Killer HD 2900XTX?

my computer is still running on 256 system ram and a x1600 pro 512mb, it's running dawn of war quite nicely too though only 6 player maps smoothly.

as much as i like ati Astral is right, it's not lack of memory memory that's killing ati it's mediocre hardware with 6 months premature born drivers and high prices

The 1GB Diamond HD2900XT can be purchased at Extreme PC (www.extreme-pc.ca) for $599.95 CAD. It's been available for a few days now.
Direct Link:
http://www.extreme-pc.ca/showproduct.asp?menu1id=12&menu2id=99&menu3id=39&productid=371414

Lol, 1GB of Video Memory, sure it will help a little, though I doubt you'd ever notice without those neat tools that tell you exact frame-rates.

Mind u might mess nicely with you ram available.

Lets say, 32bit Xp (or vista) user, decides to get one of these. Windows says hey, I see another gigabyte of address space I gotta cordon off for this device.

So you take that gigabyte, add on another say 512MB for other reserved items. and then that fancy machine with 4GB of ram installed can now only use 2.5GB (AT BEST). Can you imagine if some cashed up ati fanboy decided to get two!

Oh well, at least with this card u can save on money by not buying so much ram.

Or hope that 64bit drivers are good... lol good luck.

As mentioned before...higher resolutions will tax the memory...perhaps more than people realize. The multi-GPU idea is a little beyond what is needed...but the companies only developed that technology because people were interested in it. You can't blame them for demand.

People are talking about how the 512 MB can't surpass the 8800GTS...if I recall the benches, it was matching it...sometimes beating it, sometimes losing...and occasionally matching the GTX. This is just differences in technology. ATI and nVidia both had different ideas in how to increase performance. Claiming that one is better than another is pointless because of this.

Personally, I'm hoping this GDDR4 card will be able to better match the GTX...maybe even the Ultra...

As for the heat problem...I don't think we'll have a real solution for that until they shrink the transistor size...65nm if they can, but I heard that there was talk of one between current size and 65...maybe 72nm?...don't quote me on that, though, since I can't remember where I saw that

I agree with James's post above, why add more memory to an XT version (just like the 512MB versions of x1600 or 6600 who saw any good in that?) when an XTX version should be the next logical step! I mean for a price like 500$ it's hard to recommend because of the performance it gives compared to the competition ... The 512MB version has a great price and takes the middle ground between the GTS and GTX and considering the fact that it has great potential for performance in future DX10 games (320 shaders) it's represents a great buy while a 1GB version would make it's price/performance value a lot lower! I'd rather wait for the XTX this way you get more speed as well :D.

The memory, while it does use some power and output some heat, plays very little role in the overall power usage or heat output of the card. The GPU is by far the biggest culprit here.

1gb is perfect friend to r600, you,ll see.

to those commenting that 1gb is a natural progression and is "future proofing", I think you're fooling yourself. By the time a game is released which would really make good use of 1gb of video memory, the chipset will be 1 or 2 generations past where it's at now. Why would you buy the 1gb of video memory ahead of time and be stuck with an inferior video chipset later making that your bottleneck? There's always a sweet spot where hardware is actually being fully implemented at any given timeframe of software development. We're far from 1gb implementation at this point, 512mb is about the most unless MAYBE you go past 1680x1050, which would be a VERY low percentage of PC gamers/users.

BTW, to the person suggesting doing benchmarks at "hidef" resolution of 1900x1080, why bother? there are benchmarks below and above that, at resolutions that PC monitors actually use in general. Why bother introducing another small step in the already large number of resolutions THG tests? There's nothing special about that resolution that would change performance trends.

I don't think that 1gig of ram will be a crap.If you look at the GPU bandwith and it's horsepower you will find ddr3 like a race car with huge engine and diesel fuel.Try switching on ddr4 and put some extra memory and you'll find extra power.Of course the major problem for ati with their new stalion is the drivers.It can't be possible that in a benchmark to beat the crap an 8600 from nvidia and in another test to make almost an equal score. they need to work much more at the drivers because i don't think that that gpu can do just this poor score.If you compare the mflops and other characteristics of the 8800 and 2900 you'll find that radeon 2900 is quite a lot superior.But yet... the benchmarks tells us other story.So... where is the truth?

There's barely any games out there that benefit from adding in more memory. Right now the only game I can think of that would be bottlenecked by memory is Oblivion, which can easily eat up in excess of 512 MB of VRAM if you install high resolution texture replacements. Otherwise, there really isn't too many games that can take advantage of that much memory. Right now we're at our sweet spot of 256 - 512 MB; most games don't use that much and how many people actually game at resolutions higher then 1920x1200 -- much less even at that resolution? People who game at that resolution make up a very small fraction of the whole.

Oh well, it's progress. I don't see the point in it at this point with very few games able to take advantage of it though. Maybe when Quake Wars comes out we can see the benefits of having such a large amount of VRAM when using QW's MegaTexture.

Unless they're improving the overall performance of the card, 1gb isnt necessary; it's a waste. I've seen benchmarks where the original 2900 couldnt even beat a gts, uping it's memory will improve it's performance, but it'll also up it's price tag by quite a bit.

It has been a few generations now since nvidia quadro cards have been baselined on their normal chipsets. They work identical in dx games as their cheap counterparts but will blow away those same cards in ogl games from what i understand.

I'm sure benchmarks are posted somewhere to confirm this, however games are not a good reason to play the extra premium for these cards, they're for gfx pros and the like.

It would be brilliant to crossfire it with previous 2900xt models.
That way it uses the XTX 1GB DDR4 as the main memory cache, and just uses the 2900XT card as the extra GPU.

Damn that would be good, and why wouldnt it work, same GPU so....

Been a loyal PC Gamer forever here and I just don't possibly understand why someone forks out the $$$ for these cards when they're released. FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS?! WHY?! I've never, EVER spent more than 150 bucks on a video card, and I've never had to go to the store and worry about not being able to play a game at top resolutions/frame rates.

I have an X1950xt and it runs everything great along with my 2GB of RAM and x2 3800. And that is by no means a "powerhouse" PC, or whatever.

PC components are like cars, I think. Everyone shoots their wad because they want the biggest, "coolest," newest thing so they go out and blow money on something that isn't practical when something that's EASILY half the price can get you by just as good.

1GB of memory? Come back to me in 3 years when that actually matters. Of course by that time, the card will be under 200 bucks and then I'll actually consider buying it.

What are you dudes smoking? Oblivion, Battlefield 2142, Company of heroes, F.E.A.R. Extraction Point. ever hear of rendering?

Game developers are doing other things (holding us back) until the masses have enough memory for them to use it. This is one of the reason why console development is preferred by them, because system starting point.

If you shoot a tree and that textured damage is displayed. Leave the screen a process has to take place behind the scene transfer information to system memory. That memory is recalled back into graphics memory as you return to the area. Past solutions were to produce image with no damage because of memory requirements. Ever play a game where 4X4 player with massive ai units would go to a crawl?

Most game companies use system RAM when video Ram is low. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...ear_9.html

If this wasn't the case than the game would not run differently on a 1, 2 or 4 gig machine. Duh!!!

2 gigs of system ram is suggested and still experience some slow down. Many of you don't realize those game slow downs are due to memory and the management of it in the programming.

This is asinine, so many of you post the memory means nothing. It's like you guys don't realize what goes on in a system. And the massive amounts of programming behind making things work. How do you think minimum system requirement machine vs maximum?

An example of companies programming around our machines is the operating system itself. Microsoft programmed a solution called virtual ram. Virtual ram uses your hard drive(or flash drive) to simulate system ram. It's much slower and as a result some users hard drive scream.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/msi8800gts-640_19.html

"Supreme Commander does not need as much graphics memory as Company of Heroes"

Look at the numbers 1280X1024, 1600x1200 & 1920x1200

And P.S non-high def gamers stop posting the rest of us aren't using those resolutions.

First the X1950xt isn't chop liver card. In fact you're such a 'Fv[K!ng' liar X1950xt can't be purchased for less than $151 (pricegrabber.com). So unless it was a free gift then you're one of the biggest liars on this site since posting inception.
I suggest a name change because lying in your post has shot 'ALL' future credibility under this one pal...

You posted your system and comments as if you have the bottom of the barrel. Drop in a 8 or 64 meg AGP card and tell us how great gaming is and how memory isn't needed. The GPU is one of the most critical to gaming.

Bleeding edge is for fools and is not needed. But please stop posting this card will be great for the next 3 to 5 years. It last for those years because developers choose to down scale games so cheap crappy systems can still be users turning profits higher.

Game developing on PC's are a tremendous effort. Starting with their decision on how much and what to down grade to find a level to have as many of us as customers as possible, testing many systems and setups.

Change thinking from 'better system aren't needed' and who needs more RAM, VRAM, CPU or a better GPU. To I'm contributing to holding other gamers back because I have decided to settle on minimum system.

I mean you guys act like better quality, functionality and other improvements are just not possible or desired. If you went to the arcade and saw two games for 1.00 32k pac man game next to A top of the line racing CIM. Would you want the developer to release the racing cim stripped down to 32k?

Many Specialized arcade games have always not been fully ported because of a decision by developers based on target customer base. Have any of you had a favorite arcade game and purchased the PC or console port and thought damn a lot is missing???

If only 5 people bought HD-DVD Would the movie houses scale back to cheaper 480P and push up converting or perform 1080P transfer process regardless. Supply and demand??? umm hello?

I almost laughed when I saw 1GB Video Card. But...

Remember when Video was 4K 64K 128K 256K 1MB 2MB 4MB 8MB 12MB (good ole Voodoo2) 16MB 32MB and on and on. Software will soon need more than 1GB for the resolutions coming.

What I wonder... is IF you have a 1 GB video card and only using, say 8MB for standard desktop apps... can the rest be used for other computer uses? Caching or just plain ole more computer alocating for regular RAM.

the x1950xt will be worthness in 3 years? ram on graphics cards matter now?
my foot!
I have a x850xt (256mb ram), 3800 althon (not dual core) and 1gb of white label ram (PC2700) that's not in dual channel mode because I only have 1gb stick

I can still run oblivian at a playable frame rate
I can still run all of the current "top" games at good frame rates

it doesn't have shader models 3, but things still look great at high res, and low res

the 1gb x2900XT will be able to play top games in the future that use the GPU ram

but it'll be like my x850xt, games wont look as good

I recognize that gaming companies programming their games to allow for people with slower systems DOES limit improvements to the gaming experience of those who always purchase the latest and greatest, in order to reach a larger audience. However, that's because they are a business and this will continue to happen forever. Why argue a video card should have more RAM because it has potential to be used, but gaming companies are not programming to use it? So you think this card should be sold and purchased based on a POTENTIAL for games to be more powerful, when they are not? You sound like a salesperson Englighten.

Of COURSE improvements in RAM are necessary over time, in speed AND quantity. However, if a 2900xtx video card with 30gb of video memory were released tomorrow for $1000 would you buy it? I would hope not, because you should know very well that amount of memory could not possibly be utilized with current software, and you do NOT need 30gb of video memory to improve your gaming experience in any noticeable way.

I am exhaggerating the amount obviously to illustrate that MORE RAM is not necessarily always better when it's NOT YET UTILIZED. When most common games are utilizing that amount of memory regularly (1gb), there will already be 1 or 2 generations further of video chipsets as I mentioned. Why be a guinea pig and buy hardware before you can use it?

It's like you read my post and comprehended absolutely NOTHING... You're either stupidly playing "Jeopardy" asking the questions after you've already read the answer or idiotically attributing false meanings to my words.

A dullard (as yourself) may see me as a "fortune teller" since my answers preceded your questions (WOW!!)

1) "Why argue a video card should have more RAM because it has potential to be used, but gaming companies are not programming to use it?"
A) "Oblivion, Battlefield 2142, Company of heroes, F.E.A.R. Extraction Point" Real games?
B) "Many of you don't realize those game slow downs are due to memory and the management of it in the programming."

2) "So you think this card should be sold and purchased based on a POTENTIAL for games to be more powerful, when they are not?" A) Read answer #1 B) "developers choose to down scale games so cheap crappy systems can still be users turning profits higher"

3) "if a 2900xtx video card with 30gb of video memory were released tomorrow for $1000 would you buy it?" A) "Bleeding edge is for fools and is not needed."

4) "you do NOT need 30gb of video memory to improve your gaming experience in any noticeable way."
A) http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...40_19.html
Almost double the FPS at hi def gaming moving from 320 to 640 meg duh! B) "Ever play a game where 4X4 player with massive ai units would go to a crawl?"

5) "When most common games are utilizing that amount of memory regularly (1gb), there will already be 1 or 2 generations further of video chipsets as I mentioned."
A) "I'm contributing to holding other gamers back because I have decided to settle on minimum system." B) "developers choose to down scale games so cheap crappy systems can still be users turning profits higher." C) "until the masses have enough memory for them to use it."

Any more questions to previously posted answers?

With your logic (which is why we are screwed up as a whole to beging with) no one should purchase HD-DVD or Blue Ray until all movies are created on it.

You see there is a difference between technology not being ready and technology ready but not being utilized.

A great example would be broadcasting. 230 analog lines of resolution remained in place despite technology being there for much better resolutions. a channel here (fox) and there (ABC) announce they will now broadcast in 720P. Why not all stations? because most don't have hi def tv's.

And despite movies going 1080P as the standard. People like you are sucking up those low cost 480P HDTV's deal. Convincing your wife (Gertrude) we've
moved up. "Gretrude Honey!!! we're HDTVing the same 1080P for less, I'm a freaking genius".

Most of you who say I'm playing the "top" resolution and it's playing are lieing your ass off because THG and other sites post the numbers. And the FPS for many are unplayable. LOL 15 FPS oblivion can't be fun and don't try to convince me it is.

Adam dude! You're making me hungry for chinese tonight. You guys are lying your azzes off... Why make me do this? X850 at top resolution? Please put down the crack pipes... No 'F'ing Way...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/7games-spring2007_3.html#sect0

1) Oblivion - 10.7 FPS
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=740&model2=722&chart=298

2) Battlefield 2142 - 13.8 FPS
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=740&model2=722&chart=279

3) Dark Messiah of might and magic - 13.1 FPS
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=740&model2=722&chart=284

4) MS Flight simulator X - 11.2 FPS
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=740&model2=722&chart=293

For the next 3 I'll just show mainstream cards and comments.

1) Supreme Commander -
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/7games-spring2007_11.html#sect1
"The game is pretty, but not perfect, in terms of visuals. Particularly, it lacks a realistic physical model and changeable landscape." Yea it can't because they're trying down scale for losers.

2) Call of Juarez -
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/7games-spring2007_5.html#sect3
"The average frame rate is lower than 20fps, so the game is utterly unplayable. If you want to play Call of Juarez in best quality and with full comfort, you’ll need to replace your mainstream graphics card with something better."

3) Company of Heroes -
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/7games-spring2007_6.html#sect1

"Although the average speed of the Radeon X1650 XT is rather high, the minimum speed is below 10fps. It means slowdowns and loss of control accuracy which is no less important for a real-time strategy than for a first-person shooter."

This is just DX9, we can't even bring in the discussion of DX10 eye candy. "Yes More Freaking Candy to that".

Any chance of you guys delevering me some No-'F'ing-Way too? I'm hungry now...

Extreme PC in Canada has these already in stock @ $599 CND:

http://www.extreme-pc.ca/showproduct.asp?menu1id=12&menu2id=99&menu3id=39&productid=371414

They say if u buy a system u get these at $549 cnd! Nice...

....Just wanted to point out, most monitors sold today are TFT 19 to 21" Wide Screens.

If ya want to play native resolutions and enable all eyecandy, these kinda cards come in pretty handy.

just curious.

Do you have this sickness in which you call foul on anyone around you and just cant help yourself?

your proof that 1gb of ram is fully utilized is by quoting yourself listing a bunch of names of games? If you actually bother to review the benchmarks for those games, you'll find that large RAM on a video card ONLY makes any difference at all when at VERY HIGH resolutions. Personally I'm running at 1680x1050, which is arguably higher than the average gamer's resolution of 1280x1024. My 512mb x1950pro ANNIHILATES BF2, HL2EP2 and CoH with beautiful framerates. Explain to me why 1gb of RAM would benefit me please? Extra cost for NOTHING.

Your opinion is backwards. Because you're crying and whining that people won't upgrade their computers every year so that game developers will only program bleeding edge high demand software, does not make any difference. Our purchasing decisions must be based on REALITY, not what you want it to be.

Your next post just further proves you're trying to live in a dream world where real consumers (with a limited budget) don't live. You're now complaining about people taking a long time to adopt new higher resolution televisions and programming. I know this is complicated to understand, but we have LIMITED MONEY. Modern television broadcasting costs less for cable/satellite companies than it did 10 or 20 years ago, a LOT less. Our cost is FAR higher, and the charges for HD programming are OUTRAGEOUS.

On principle I don't disagree with you, our transition to newer tech higher definition should be quick and make everyone happy. the reality is, the broadcasters and media makers (of blue ray, hddvd) still charge too much for the technology to be affordable to the masses. They're greedy.

Of course your x1950pro runs those games, HL2 and BF2 came out 2 or 3 years ago...they are relatively old consering the pace of new technology. I'd like to see you run S.T.A.L.K.E.R maxed out w/ full dynamic lighting and see how it runs...it'll slow too a crawl. My OC'd core 2 duo, 2 Gb's ram, and X1950XT can't come close to pulling decent frames maxed out at 1280X1024 even.

Although you generally agree with his statement, I'm not sure everyone understands the market these high end cards are aimed it. People have different budgets and interests and these are obviously for the high end gaming community. If there weren't people buying them, they wouldn't release them. And as the newer games hit, this technology will be put to use. The hardware needs to be ahead of the software. Game manufacturers aren't going to release games that can't be maxed out due to the hardware limitations hoping that the hardware technology will catch up in the retail market. If there wasn't a market for these high end pieces of hardware, then then Falcon, Ibuypower, Biohazard etc. wouldn't exist. These aren't geared to "the masses," their scope is the high end gaming and entertainment market.

"large RAM on a video card ONLY makes any difference at all when at VERY HIGH resolutions"

Well Duh!!! My post says High Def Gaming jerk... You said no companies are using it after I said they program tricks to use your system memory instead. Here is a test, change your 2 gig to 256meg chip, turn your virtual memory extremely low then game your azz off.

I mean take a deep, deep breath and use your head. And if your response is if the result of mental max then damnit use someone else's head.

Dude, when you guys post on here this crap it makes no sense. Here's an analogy that I hope will help you here's the scenerio

A new IMAX 3-D star wars is just released it was the 4th movie of this type this year.

There is an IMAX theater in the next town over from you.

The movie is being shown in your town at a regular theater which doesn't have the IMAX size, quality and 3-D was stripped out.

You read a George Lucas interview and he says the IMAX movie is very good, but I wanted it to be great. I left out 30 minutes because it would only be seen in 20 IMAX thearters. If we had more IMAX theaters and people wanting that quality then we'd release it.

You get excited drive to IMAX, see the movie and stop at the store on your way home.

There are two guys in the store behind you. And one named Adam says "I just watched the VCR bootleg copy and you can't tell the difference everything is the exact same as that IMAX and get this I don't even have a