256 vs 512mb

G

greygoose

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
183
there was a thread way back that someone was explaining why it was better to go with a 256mb 7900gt over a 512mb 7600gs. i did a search with key words and came up empty.

can someone just quickly explain why the 256mb GT would perform better than the 512 GS? thanks. and even if there is a link i'll take that
 
the short story:

edit: a Graphics card is just like a motherboard. the processer would be the GPU, the motherboard would be the PCB, and the ram (DDR) would be the, well, ram (GDDR).
because the G71 (7900) core has 2X as many pipes as the G73 (7600) core. ultimatly, 512mb is usable, but its mainly a gimmick.

the long story:

the G71 (all 7900 cards) is the bigger brother to the G73 (all 7600 cards, and the 7300GT). the G71 is the enthusiast core where the G73 is a mainstream core. A pipe is a processer. all those people out there asking why we dont have dual core GPUs, the answer is, we do, infact we have GPUs that are 24 cored. a pipe is a GPU exicution core. any vertex, pixel, or shader threads are sent to the pipes. so, i said a G71 has 2X as many pipes as a G73, this means a G71 can process 2X the everything that a G73 can, per clock. thats where clock speed comes in. the pipes can only perform at the clock speed there told to operate at. a 7900GT and 7900GS runs at a slightly lower clock speed then the 7600GT, but it still outperforms cuz of the extra pipes.

what GDDR does on a card is cache stuff (just like normal ram lol). mainly, what it can do is cache individual pixel information, hence, more ram means higher resolutions. the core HAS to be able to calculate each pixel tho. so while it may be able to cache the pixels it wont necissarily be able to process them. the trick is to obtain a balance between GPU power and ram ammount. the 7600GS 512mb has way too much ram for the pipes to handle, hence, its not a good card. the extra ram on the 7600GS will allow you to run killer resolutions in older games, but not in newer ones.

for everything you ever wanted to know about graphics cards, and GPUs, go here (thats not G-pure-view, its GPU review)
 
i dont believe in god, but im having second thoughts now.
do you have a son named jesus? and a wife named Nvidia?
 
greygoose said:
there was a thread way back that someone was explaining why it was better to go with a 256mb 7900gt over a 512mb 7600gs. i did a search with key words and came up empty.

can someone just quickly explain why the 256mb GT would perform better than the 512 GS? thanks. and even if there is a link i'll take that
Click to expand...
Why? Because the 7900GT is more expensive.
 
If you look purely at the amount of ram a video card has in comparison with another it will get you nowhere, the amount of ram in most cases is irrelevant.

Something simple would be
256MB of GDDR3 > 512MB of DDR2

But mainly the speed in games and such has almost nothing to do with the ram, it's all about the graphics processing unit.
 
It depends on the card, in your case the 7900gt is better than the other one.
 
To re-iterate...

Core speed vs RAM capacity... Kinda like a Mclaren F1 vs a dump truck. Sure, the dump truck can HOLD alot more shit, but it's not going to be anywhere near as fast.

This is a terrible analogy, as we're not taking into account torque and other forces of physics, but the message holds true...

You could have a card with 2gb of Vram, which would be able to cache entire GAMES of video texture data, but without a fast main processor, well... You're caching data, but not MANIPULATING it very well.

It's better to have an 8800GTX with 128mb of Vram than an X1300 with 2gb of RAM.
 
Arcygenical said:
To re-iterate...

Core speed vs RAM capacity... Kinda like a Mclaren F1 vs a dump truck. Sure, the dump truck can HOLD alot more shit, but it's not going to be anywhere near as fast.

This is a terrible analogy, as we're not taking into account torque and other forces of physics, but the message holds true...

You could have a card with 2gb of Vram, which would be able to cache entire GAMES of video texture data, but without a fast main processor, well... You're caching data, but not MANIPULATING it very well.

It's better to have an 8800GTX with 128mb of Vram than an X1300 with 2gb of RAM.
Click to expand...

QFT, take the 9550. Comes with 256mb of vram but has a core of 250mhz and memory of 200mhz. Any modern 128mb card would smoke it.
 
Firebat said:
QFT, take the 9550. Comes with 256mb of vram but has a core of 250mhz and memory of 200mhz. Any modern 128mb card would smoke it.
Click to expand...

In fact, the older AIW 9700 Pro (not exactly a card known for performance) regularly embarrasses the 9550-based cards, despite having half the RAM.
 
greygoose said:
i dont believe in god, but im having second thoughts now.
do you have a son named jesus? and a wife named Nvidia?
Click to expand...

edit: forget it im not going to bother to ask.

umm yeah, definatly go with a 7900GT or 7900GS. From the Red Team (ATI), you might consider an X1950Pro, an X1950XT, or an X1900GT. they are all excellent cards for the performance you can get out of them, and at the prices they cost.

do not go with an X1600 512mb, or a 7600GS 512mb.
 
i was talking about the 7900GS not the 7900GT.
i think a few people have misquoted me.
if i could afford the 7900gt i definately would but i think im going with the 7900gs.

and thanks to all
 
greygoose said:
i was talking about the 7900GS not the 7900GT.
i think a few people have misquoted me.
if i could afford the 7900gt i definately would but i think im going with the 7900gs.

and thanks to all
Click to expand...

Yeah get the GS 256mb overclock it then it'll beat the 7900 gt 256

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/09/21/geforce_7900_gs_group_test/14.html
I got the EVGA one for 4 of my LAN pc's and its great ovelclocked em' loads. Its got a ace fan onit see...

512mb = Pointless waste of cash. Its like have 2gig of sys memory

Chack of the VGA charts at toms hardware 512mb card beat 256 card by only about 0.2 fps difference..

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html?modelx=33&model1=521&model2=583&chart=211
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top