• 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.

does 256mb ram make difference?

V

videogamer323

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
384
How much does 256mb of ram make a difference comapered to 128mb of ram? Im talking on videocards of course, "I'm looking at 2 cards, HIS Radeon 9800Pro with 128mb of ram or the Powercolor Radeon 9800Pro with 256mb of ram?
 
128mb= really good preformance at low res
256mb= really good preformance high resolutions


I say, don't waste your extra 100 bucks on more video ram. Save up for the upcoming new technology.
 
Unless you 'really' need bragging rights, save your money. Right now, I'm not sure most games / technology can fully (note, FULLY) take advantage of 256MB of video ram. Yah, it will get used, but not the full advantage.
At our last LAN, peeps with 128MB 9600XT's and 256MB versions were runnign UT2004 with everything maxed out at the same res (similar systems) and there wasn't any difference in performance.

Peace,
Tim
 
At a high res with AA/AF on, there is a difference. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesnt know the facts.

CoD is almost double the frames at 1600x1200 with AA/AF with a 9800XT vs. a 9800 Pro 128meg.
 
Originally posted by fallguy
At a high res with AA/AF on, there is a difference. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesnt know the facts.

CoD is almost double the frames at 1600x1200 with AA/AF with a 9800XT vs. a 9800 Pro 128meg.
Click to expand...

And what are the frame rates?

-- 10 fps with AA/AF & 128MB
vs 20fps with AA/AF & 256MB

Each generation card has added more ram and usually doesnt have the "horsepower" needed to be able to use that much ram.

Ex: GF4ti4200 64Mb vs GF4ti4200 128MB
Everyone said it made xx% difference at 1280x1024 with 4AA/8AF etc... but the frame rates were under 30fps for either so its really a moot point.

The amount of horsepower/bandwidth to be able to use 256Mb vs 128Mb isnt really there with the fx5950 or 9800XT. The frame reates arent high enough to be playable with either version. So once again its a moot point.

Old games like Quake3 you might be able to run at 1600x1200 with 4aa/8af but there wont be the 2x performance difference on that game, plus who cares about older games when you could runs those with an OLD card.

Try running some new games at 1600x1200 with 4aa/8af with both cards and give me the fps for each. My guess around 30fps with 256MB and 20fps with 128Mb.

Here's some benches for 256MB 9800XT and 5950 at 1600x1200 @ 4xaa/8xaf http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1896&p=7 most games were right around 30fps AVERAGE. so you know the minimum was probably a slideshow at the worst parts.

SO LIKE I SAID its a moot point.

Go down to 1280x1024 with or without AA/AF and there's only about 1-10fps difference between 128 & 256MB cards. 9800 Pro 128 vs 9800 Pro 256 as an example.

Now the next generation NV40 / r420 there will probably be a bigger difference between 128 & 256... but then everyone will be talking about the difference between 256 & 512 and once again 512 will be overkill b/c its not really usable. If its anything like every other memory upgrade since the dawn of videocards.
 
Originally posted by chrisf6969
And what are the frame rates?

-- 10 fps with AA/AF & 128MB
vs 20fps with AA/AF & 256MB

Each generation card has added more ram and usually doesnt have the "horsepower" needed to be able to use that much ram.
Click to expand...
^^ What he said.
 
It'll be interesting to see what the card makers choose for different flavours in the next gen cards.

My bet is that all of the NV40, R420 cards will have 256MB or 512MB (and both with GDDR2 and DDR2).

The budget and mainstream cards may find a 128MB card in there, but I don't think we'll find it for NV40 or R420
 
at 57fps, what was the minimum fps and thats for a demo, not a MP server packed with 10v10 probably. so not really playable IN MY BOOK.

Those numbers still basically back up what I was saying. At lower resolutions it doesnt matter and at the resolution/quality settings where it does, the cards are underpowered.

And thats only about 50% difference(57vs37)*. And if you can find an instance where it is close to 100% its at even lower fps than 57 & 37. Like I said maybe 20vs10 or 30vs15

But then again I am very picky. I like my minimum fps to be like 70 fps and average around 100fps+ just to make sure there's ultra smooth play NO MATTER what!

* (57-37)/37 = 54.05%

57 is the 256 Pro version which is clocked slightly faster than the 128 Pro (technically should subtract 2-3 fps)
61 is the 256 XT version which is clocked A LOT faster than the 128 Pro version.

Dont fudge your numbers to try making a point!
 
Uh, Im not fudging my numbers. I edited the 61 from 57, because in my first post I said 9800XT vs. 9800 Pro 128meg.

The only person bringing up lower resolutions, is you. I never claimed 256 made a difference in lower res'.

What I said was fact. At 1600x1200 with AA/AF there is a difference, you cant deny this. How much of a difference varies from game to game. And like I said before, its up the user to decide if its worth it.

end
 
Most everyone seems to have forgotten texture memory in here... With the advent of high-res 32-bit textures and high anisotropic filtering levels that push the use of those high res textures, even current games can use more than 128mb of ram without antialiasing and without having to run at uber resolutions.

Tim from Epic has already mentioned at least once that UT2K3 and Unreal 2 both can use more than 128mb of local video ram when all details are set to maximum and resolution is 1024x768x32 or larger.
 
Originally posted by fallguy
Uh, Im not fudging my numbers. I edited the 61 from 57, because in my first post I said 9800XT vs. 9800 Pro 128meg.

The only person bringing up lower resolutions, is you. I never claimed 256 made a difference in lower res'.

What I said was fact. At 1600x1200 with AA/AF there is a difference, you cant deny this. How much of a difference varies from game to game. And like I said before, its up the user to decide if its worth it.

end
Click to expand...

the XT has other advantages besides memory that make it faster (core & memory clock speeds)

I said Size 128 vs 256 doesnt make a difference except at 1600x1200 (agreeing with you) but its only in instances where the framerate is at an already low unplayable level.

And I just added in the lower resolutions to show there's very little differnce there... and thats where you HAVE to play if you want acceptable (non slide show/stuttering) frame rates. (with 4xAA/8xAF, high detail, new games, etc)

end^2

P.S. Alber - I THINK with textures that take up a lot more than 128Mb you'd be bandwidth/horsepower limited possibly like with 1600x1200 AA/AF. Though not many games have textures that large since game developers shoot for a common base with a minimum 32Mb videocards.
 
Originally posted by chrisf6969


And I just added in the lower resolutions to show there's very little differnce there... and thats where you HAVE to play if you want acceptable (non slide show/stuttering) frame rates.

Click to expand...

No its not.
 
Originally posted by chrisf6969
IS TOO! Infinity :p lol
Click to expand...

:) - you made me spit out my coffee -

Here's the thing I've encountered over the years - card "a" benchmards at 10 fps more than card "b". Now, when you actually play the games, that 10fps really isn't noticed from 50 to 60 fps. now, 20 to 30fps, oh yeah, you notice it. Since everyone like to run Q3 benchies, I've yet to tell the difference between 100 and 130 fps... but then again, I'm and old fart. Yes, I can tell the difference between a 9600pro w/128 and a 9600xt w/ 256 with the rest of system being the same, but there we are no comparing apples to apples since the GPU is differernt. With my old GF4ti4200 w/ 64mb, I got better performance (benchies and in game fps) than with the 128MB version I had - why? faster memory.

but, being able to turn everything up all the way and still have it playable at 1600 x 1200, that's spiffy.

GPU aside, is 256mb worth the cost over 128mb? - if the GPU is equal and everything is clocked the same, "maybe". Like it was said, some games can utilze all the memory on the card, others not so well. And does the GPU have the horsepower to do so - like an FX5200 with 256? Gimme a break, does it improve performance over the 128 mb version? (no experience there)

Then again, if I had the money to burn, yah, I'd get the 256MB 9800XT, but since I don't, the 128 mb card for me (currently a 5700u - got it before they came out with the 5900xt... :( )

Peace,
tim
Tim
 
So basically if you arent running AA or AF or high resolution then 128 vs 256 doesnt matter???
 
Originally posted by zupadupa
So basically if you arent running AA or AF or high resolution then 128 vs 256 doesnt matter???
Click to expand...

It's all about frame buffers and what the games needs. Like fallguy said it all depends on the game. But I can clearly see stuttering at extreme rez's with my 128meg 9800 in some newer games, so I know he is right. It all depends on the game and how you're running it and if you're running it out of memory. Farcry can definitely use 256 megs at 1600x1200. Here shortly 256 is going to be required to get non stuttering at decent resolutions. Like it or not it's just evolution baby.
 
Originally posted by PopCorn
... Here shortly 256 is going to be required to get non stuttering at decent resolutions. Like it or not it's just evolution baby.
Click to expand...

yah, and I remember when a 4 MB 3D add on card was the bleeding edge. Regardless of what "they" say, what really drives the technology is games. It's not the CAD, it's the the 3D renedering, is us gamers that want it to not only look good, but move smoothly.

The breed of ATi and vVidia cards will hit the streets with 256, and 512 right around the corner.

Peace,
Tim
 
Ok, I see there is much controversy over this...
Here is the card I really like
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-161-109&depa=0
The reviews I have been looking at have OCed the card past 9800xt specs with ease, now I know if I got an XT I could go even farther, but I don't have that kind of cash.

The other card I was thinking about was a Saphire 9800pro with 256mb of ram...

Im usualy not to gung ho about running at 1600x1200 because all the text is to damn small for most games... even on my 21inch monitor
 
I just bought the Saphire 9800por 256mb 3 days ago. Got it in the mail today and flashed the bios to a Saphire 9800XT 256.

Its running beautiful. I got temp readings and all the other sweet stuff.

3dmark before the flash = 5572
after the flash = 6233

I say , go with the 9800pro 256mb and just flash it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top