Is GTX260 more future proof than 4870 due to 896 mb memory?

P

PRINCESS_FLUFF!

n00b
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
44
Hi, I'm wondering if the 260, despite having slightly lower benchmarks in key games for now, might be more future proof due to having 896mb of memory instead of 512? I think there was a slight difference in some games for the 8800GTS 640 versus the 320, so I wonder if 512 might become on the short side of things and be detrimental in future games. Any guesses?
 
By the time >512MB is useful, the card will be too slow to keep up anyway. So neither is any more future proof than the other.
 
PRINCESS_FLUFF! said:
Don't game already fill up the 512 when it's available?
Click to expand...

If you are gaming at high resolutions with high AA, yes they do. This is only an issue though with 4870s in crossfire. These CAN run out of memory because they have the power to push high res and AA.

GTX 260s could end up being equal to 4870s in crossfire when SLI scaling gets a bit better, and they could be better if games use a lot of VRAM.

Right now, you'll never be able to run out of memory on a single 4870. They don't have the power to push settings high enough to run out of VRAM.
 
The only game I've seen that uses more than 512MB of video RAM is Oblivion with texture mods. But it still runs great on my 512MB 4850, even when it's indicating 700+ MB of video RAM usage. Don't think it's displaying all those textures at once.

GRID uses more than 512MB at 2560x1600 with 4x (or maybe 8x) FSAA I think. Haven't played the game myself yet.

Other than that, most games are around the 300-450MB mark. There's a thread at Rage3D where someone analyzed the video memory usage of several games.

By the time >512MB is useful, the card will be too slow to keep up anyway
Click to expand...

It's similar to the Pixel Shader 2.0 vs 3.0 argument with the X800 and Geforce 6800 series. That time, it turned out to be pretty much true - once games that needed PS 3.0 came out, both cards had been replaced with faster cards (X1800, 7800 and later the 8800 series).

Still, there were a few situations where the 6800 looked better due to PS 3.0 (e.g. Gothic III). The same will probably be true for 512MB cards - there will no doubt be one or two TWIMTBP games where they use more than 512MB of textures to make it run better on the GTX200 series.
 
two terms should never be used in the same sentence with a video card.

1. Futureproof

2. Investment

video cards will never be either of these things.

you want an investment? go buy some land, a bond or an ETF. video cards depreciate in value continually.

futureproof? an imaginary concept as applies to video cards propogated by video card noobs and shady hardware sellers.
 
Thank you, all your posts were very informative. So now I guess I have no valid reason for taking a GTX260 over a 4870, given that I plan to play only FPS and RTS games, which are all a bit faster on the 4870. I don't pay for power at home, so aside from speed, the only factors to consider are purchase price, performance and heat.
 
Well when I got my 320mb 8800GTS people were saying there is no point getting the 640mb version because no games used more than 320mb and by the time any games were using more than that, it'd be running too slow either way (ironically the first games I personally played that did was Oblivion and DIRT, the predecessor to GRID).

Now, a bit over a year later, I wish I had the 640mb version. Not that I would have bought it anyway as I didn't have the money at the time. The games that I can think of off the top of my head where the 320mb has become a bottleneck (ie. the card is fast enough to play the game well, but problems come up due to lack of video RAM) would be DIRT, GRID, Gears of War, Assassins Creed, Oblivion with texture mods and I'm sure several others that I haven't played on my PC.

Of course most of those games I just have to turn down the textures or not use AA and they run ok. But still, the extra video ram on the GTX260 is worth something. That said, I think the 48xx series uses ram differently to the nvidia cards (particularly in the field of AA). However thats just what I've been told, if its true the 512mb of ram on the 4870 may actually last just as long as the GTX260s 896mb.
 
Tudz said:
Well when I got my 320mb 8800GTS people were saying there is no point getting the 640mb version because no games used more than 320mb and by the time any games were using more than that, it'd be running too slow either way (ironically the first games I personally played that did was Oblivion and DIRT, the predecessor to GRID).

Now, a bit over a year later, I wish I had the 640mb version. Not that I would have bought it anyway as I didn't have the money at the time. The games that I can think of off the top of my head where the 320mb has become a bottleneck (ie. the card is fast enough to play the game well, but problems come up due to lack of video RAM) would be DIRT, GRID, Gears of War, Assassins Creed, Oblivion with texture mods and I'm sure several others that I haven't played on my PC.

Of course most of those games I just have to turn down the textures or not use AA and they run ok. But still, the extra video ram on the GTX260 is worth something. That said, I think the 48xx series uses ram differently to the nvidia cards (particularly in the field of AA). However thats just what I've been told, if its true the 512mb of ram on the 4870 may actually last just as long as the GTX260s 896mb.
Click to expand...

I would call that a bit different of a situation. 256mb was already being replaced with 512mb in the generation before it (such as the 7950GT). So 320mb was more of a step backwards. I don't think that really applies to the 4870 vs. GTX 260. Then again, ATI seems to utilize its VRAM better than Nvidia (3850 256mb vs. 8800GT 256mb, for example), so who knows?
 
kllrnohj said:
I would call that a bit different of a situation. 256mb was already being replaced with 512mb in the generation before it (such as the 7950GT). So 320mb was more of a step backwards. I don't think that really applies to the 4870 vs. GTX 260. Then again, ATI seems to utilize its VRAM better than Nvidia (3850 256mb vs. 8800GT 256mb, for example), so who knows?
Click to expand...

Well you could say that 512mb was being replaced the previous generation too ;) The 8800GTX, GTS and various other cards all had more than 512mb, then a couple of cards went back down to 512mb (GT and GTS), and now the top range nVidia again all have more than 512mb, as well as the top range ATi (there are 1gb versions of both the 4870 and 4850, and the X2 cards are 2gb).

It all depends how often you plan to upgrade, if you plan to upgrade again some time in the next year, then I think the 4870 would be better because you wont use the extra ram before you upgrade anyway. But if you want to keep it 18 to 24 months, the extra ram could be useful.

But like you said, it seems ATI use the vram better than nVidia... I'm not how true this is, but if it is there's no reason not to go the 4870.

EDIT: Also from these results of GRID...

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-4850-2-gb-gddr3-review/7

It seems the 4850 512mb can potentially run out of video ram whilst still at playable framerates. Remembering that when you run out of video ram, often its not simply a drop in framerate, often you get horrible stuttering. Granted 2gb is stupidly high overkill and actually hurts performance most the time... I think 1gb is reasonable, and probably the reason why the X2 cards all have 2gb (effectively 1gb).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top