• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

512MB Ram, Enough?

D

demingo

Trump is My President!
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Messages
2,702
So with Bestbuy running their sale on visiontek cards it's becoming very tempting to pick up a 4870 after work today. Instant gratification is a bitch, especially when its only $225.

However, my only concern is that 512 MB ram might not be enough. I know texture resolutions are getting massive. I game at 1650x1080. I however do like having all my options ingame maxed, and a high level of AA/AF. I'm currently running an 8800 GTS 640MB. It's been doing a great job but I see it slowly falling behind the performance curve I'd like.

So is 512 MB of ram enough? I personally feel with titles like Rage coming shortly that 1gb will really be the sweet spot. However, at $225 it might be worth it just to get the 4870 then sell it off when the next wave of dx11 cards hit next year.

Advice?
 
Rage is a tech demo at best. The 260 has 868mb and the MSI was as low as $200 after mir this weekend btw. The 4870 will be fine for another year at your resolution easy though.
 
I too share the same desire to upgrade to a 4870. However, [H]'s article on Sept. 24th is a big concern - in 2 out of the 3 tests, AA caused big enough problems that it wasn't worth using at 1920 (which is my native res). The cheaper 260 had no problems...which is seriously wtf moment for me.
 
The 260 is looking great. I didn't realize how far the prices came down. And with 896 MB Ram its fairly a sweet deal. I know not much is requiring that much right now, but 12 months down the road could be a different story.

Always been an nvidia fan... guess that'll continue.
 
There's something suspect about that article - they claim the GTX260 is $215. I've never seen it that low. It's ALWAYS $250 and higher...so I'm not really sure where the reviewer pulled those prices.
 
Mav451 said:
There's something suspect about that article - they claim the GTX260 is $215. I've never seen it that low. It's ALWAYS $250 and higher...so I'm not really sure where the reviewer pulled those prices.
Click to expand...

Nvidia likes to do blowout sales to get artificial pricing image. Many people fall for it.
 
every review I have seen between hd 4870 512 vs. 1gb, it shows that the 1gb only comes in to play at resolution higher than 1920x1200, at guru3d.com it only mattered at 2560.
 
It's not so much the res - [H] (and others) mention the lack of consistency for minimum FPS for the 4870. That is a big concern for me. If anything, the minimum FPS is the #1 factor, followed by the median FPS. Average or max FPS is just useless garbage in the end of the day.

Plus with how [H] uses REAL data (not a timedemo), median FPS can easily replace average FPS.

The dips were appearing even with AA off and at 1920 resolution (my native res). It's certainly a big concern if it happens...and is why I didn't jump on the deal today. I'll probably have to do the Live! cashback deal to get the GTX260 at a non-gouge price.
 
I game at 1680 x 1050 and I say no. The HD 4870 should have been a 1 GB card from jump.

I have a GTX 260 and I like it much better than the HD 4870 I ran for a month. I got some pretty heavy stuttering in Crysis Warhead with an HD 4870 that cleared-up when I ran a GTX 260. I've monitored VRAM usage in Crysis with Rivatuner when I was running Windows XP. (VRAM usage can't be monitored in Vista.) With high textures, object motion blur and the like, the game will easily go over the 512 MB framebuffer of a video card. And that's at 1680 x 1050 with no AA. Crysis Warhead is, I am sure, no different.


This is an extreme case...but i've seen something similar in Warhead with an HD 4870 and I believe it's at least partially attributable to the lack of enough VRAM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_swIKNyX958&feature=related


The only problem with benchmarks is, they don't account for problems that might occur with a game as you play it over time.

Case in point, the 9800 GX2 beats the GTX 280 in many short time demos, but in actual gameplay, there is no comparison. Gameplay with the GTX 280 is much smoother and mostly trouble-free.

I'm not saying the HD 4870 is a bad card...it's not. But for my 200+ dollars, i'll take the extra VRAM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top