Palit releases GTX285 with 2GB mem

mmmmm now that makes more sense, a few days ago i read a report about msi or gigabyte releasing a 2gb gtx 260... the 285 will probably make more use of the increased fram buffer... this should be interesting
 
Several years, just not in the US. I think this might be the first time EVER that they're releasing a card that actually benefits from above-reference video RAM...
 
the question is just how useful is 2GB even to a GTX285?

Mostly the games are not programmed to use more then 1GB
another note, does it have enough juice to utilize it!
 
I doubt the GPU will be able to keep up if you would use, say, 1.5GB of mem in GTA4. You'd need to run these in SLI or tri-SLI probably.
 
MurderCityDevil said:
i hope you're not going to upgrade just because of one VERY poorly coded port
Click to expand...

I hope you dont really think GTA4 is a poorly coded port. Anytime a game cant be run at full settings with latest hardware its automatically poorly coded. Just shut up already.
 
Xeanor said:
I doubt the GPU will be able to keep up if you would use, say, 1.5GB of mem in GTA4. You'd need to run these in SLI or tri-SLI probably.
Click to expand...
yeah having more than 1gb on the gtx285 could be useful for tri sli and maybe even regular sli setups at 2560 but I cant imagine any other scenario where it would help.
 
dorick said:
mmmmm now that makes more sense, a few days ago i read a report about msi or gigabyte releasing a 2gb gtx 260... the 285 will probably make more use of the increased fram buffer... this should be interesting
Click to expand...
well its 1792mb for the gtx260 because of the 448bit bus.
 
nissanztt90 said:
I hope you dont really think GTA4 is a poorly coded port. Anytime a game cant be run at full settings with latest hardware its automatically poorly coded. Just shut up already.
Click to expand...

considering the fact that it can be run fine on consoles that utilize 2 year old hardware and cannot even compare to the power put forth by high end PCs, plus the fact that it has absolutely nowhere near the graphical quality and effects that demanding games like crysis do (which I never thought was poorly coded, systems at that time simply weren't ready for the engine), I'd say all signs point to it being poorly coded/optimized for the PC. And thousands of players around message boards/review sites on the internet seem to agree wholeheartedly.

edit: and thanks for generalizing about my views and putting words in my mouth when all I did was bring up a single instance. I have never complained about any other port besides this one.
 
MurderCityDevil said:
considering the fact that it can be run fine on consoles that utilize 2 year old hardware and cannot even compare to the power put forth by high end PCs, plus the fact that it has absolutely nowhere near the graphical quality and effects that demanding games like crysis do (which I never thought was poorly coded, systems at that time simply weren't ready for the engine), I'd say all signs point to it being poorly coded/optimized for the PC. And thousands of players around message boards/review sites on the internet seem to agree wholeheartedly.

edit: and thanks for generalizing about my views and putting words in my mouth when all I did was bring up a single instance. I have never complained about any other port besides this one.
Click to expand...

the game runs fine at the settings used in consoles though =p
 
MurderCityDevil said:
considering the fact that it can be run fine on consoles that utilize 2 year old hardware and cannot even compare to the power put forth by high end PCs, plus the fact that it has absolutely nowhere near the graphical quality and effects that demanding games like crysis do (which I never thought was poorly coded, systems at that time simply weren't ready for the engine), I'd say all signs point to it being poorly coded/optimized for the PC. And thousands of players around message boards/review sites on the internet seem to agree wholeheartedly.

edit: and thanks for generalizing about my views and putting words in my mouth when all I did was bring up a single instance. I have never complained about any other port besides this one.
Click to expand...

I didnt intend to generalize your views. It was just a generalization, not directed towards you. Regardless, comparing a PC to console is ass backwards to begin with. Consoles are completely different with the way software is coded, its not coded for an API, its coded directly for the hardware. Consoles run at stupid low resolutions, with low textures, and these consoles still struggle to maintain even 30 fps. You clearly havent played the game for very long on either console or a PC, if youve played it at all. If you had, youd understand that the majority of PCs arent ready for the engine. My PC runs the game just f-ing fine, with almost everything pretty high up, except textures. Yes it slows down at times, but its perfectly fluid 97% of the time.

You would say all signs point to it being poorly coded, but if you actually played the game, youd realize its simply incredibly CPU dependant, as well as vRAM limited. As far as your message boards and review sites go, less than 10% of people have the hardware to run this game anywhere near its higher settings, so yeah, im not suprised a bunch of noobs that dont know squat are bitching about this game. There e4300's and 8800GTs just arent gonna cut it.
 
While you do have a point there nissan, I would recommend you check out the GTA4 thread at beyond3d and those guys know what they are talking about there considering a lot of them work in the industry. Apparently there is a memory leak in the game as well as has been proven from a lot of posts. You are right though the e4300s and 8800GTS's wont cut it. I doubt my video card setup will cut it either @ 2560 x 1600. But the fact of the matter is MurdercityDevil is not that wrong. It is indeed a crappy port. Hopefully the devs of the game are looking at fixing the issues and releasing appropriate updates to the game.

Back to the topic at hand, I would definitely like to see that card put through some benchmarks and to see how much it can be overclocked. I remember reading an article recently saying how Nvidia is now letting the board manufacturers make up their own specs or something like that and I guess this is the first of the new offerings. Personally I think it is a cool idea.
 
While i believe it is clearly a port, i dont believe its a crappy port. I can run the game at 1920x1200 with everything all the way up except textures. They are at medium. The game is plenty fluid enough for me, although i do use a 360 controller, so it probably feels alot more fluid for me that anyone using a mouse, but still far, far, far better looking than the console version, and still running better, at a much higher resolution. If i recall correctly, FPS were 50ish in the in game benchmark, dont know what they are in game. Memory leaks happen, and while that would be considered poor coding, you cant say the entire game is badly coded because of a memory leak.
 
Well I wasn't bashing the game because I don't have the hardware to run it, trust me it plays great on my machine - everything maxed on 1680x1050 with reduced draw distance. But I was not aware of the differences between coding for a console and a PC; I thought that modern game consoles are just "dumbed down" PCs in the sense that they only function as game/media players, and that their software is tailored to that. Thanks for the info. Either way, I still think the game could have been optimized better, not to mention the fact that it's still pretty buggy (at least for me), but that's just my opinion. I didn't mean to spread misinformation, I just failed to state my opinion properly. Good discussion nonetheless.
 
Id be willing to bet alot of the crashes people are having with GTA4 and its "buggyness" have ALOT to do with instable OC's. I say this because GTA4 is incredibly CPU intensive, more so than most games. I was getting crashes in GTA, when i changed my OC around a bit, the crashing stopped.
 
shansoft said:
really doubt any game will benefit under 2GB of VRAM....
Click to expand...
well at 2560 with AA a couple games are over or near 1gb of usage so yeah it could help with running sli or tri sli on the gtx285. I dont see a situation where a single gtx285 would have the power to run at settings that would need more than 1gig though.
 
nissanztt90 said:
Id be willing to bet alot of the crashes people are having with GTA4 and its "buggyness" have ALOT to do with instable OC's. I say this because GTA4 is incredibly CPU intensive, more so than most games. I was getting crashes in GTA, when i changed my OC around a bit, the crashing stopped.
Click to expand...

well the crashes I was getting were a few hours into playing; the game would close and the dialogue box would say "not enough video memory!" even when my settings were comfortably lower than the max memory available. however, I think I read that the newest nvidia drivers fixed this.
 
Consoles and PCs are entirely different architectures. Especially this generation.

I haven't played GTA4 on either system, but everything I've seen screams poor port.

Also, while a modern gaming rig will smoke a console any day, do not underestimate their power. They render beautiful 3D graphics, and while some games run at 30fps, most target 60fps. And at "stupidly low resolutions"? Last I checked, 1280x720 isn't too far below most folks screen res (1440x900, 1680x1050). That comment would fly back in the days of XBox or PS2, when they were shooting for an interlaced 720x480 at best, but that's not the case today.
 
Hey nissan, no one is bashing the full game. They are just saying that the port could use a bit more work. I think the most impressive port I have seen so far has to be Devil May Cry 4.

As for console vs PC architecture, I think only a handful of games are out there that can run any any resolution above 720p. Pyroja has a very good point though.
 
surya said:
Hey nissan, no one is bashing the full game. They are just saying that the port could use a bit more work. I think the most impressive port I have seen so far has to be Devil May Cry 4.

As for console vs PC architecture, I think only a handful of games are out there that can run any any resolution above 720p. Pyroja has a very good point though.
Click to expand...

But see the thing is, i think its fine. I dont have top end hardware and i can run the game at 1920x1200 with everything up except for one setting, and its mainly due to a vRam limitation.
 
ThreadDirection.jpg
 
MurderCityDevil said:
considering the fact that it can be run fine on consoles that utilize 2 year old hardware and cannot even compare to the power put forth by high end PCs, plus the fact that it has absolutely nowhere near the graphical quality and effects that demanding games like crysis do (which I never thought was poorly coded, systems at that time simply weren't ready for the engine), I'd say all signs point to it being poorly coded/optimized for the PC. And thousands of players around message boards/review sites on the internet seem to agree wholeheartedly.

edit: and thanks for generalizing about my views and putting words in my mouth when all I did was bring up a single instance. I have never complained about any other port besides this one.
Click to expand...

Crysis is poorly coded, regardless of what people think. It's bias towards one brand, and even then it runs averagely on their cutting-edge hardware, how many years after it's release?

Crysis has good graphics, but they're not extremely impressive. There are games that have better graphics that run better on both ATI and nVidia machines.
 
Oh god, please don't start the ZOMG CRYSIS thing again. It ran fine on my 8800GT it does render a TON of stuff, I'm not to say whether it's coded or not but it looks amazing and runs better for me than S.T.A.L.K.E.R Clear Sky.

Anyways, this could be useful for a couple of games, in SLI, at 2560 but I don't see much other use for it thus far in 3D graphics
 
RADEoN said:
Crysis is poorly coded, regardless of what people think. It's bias towards one brand, and even then it runs averagely on their cutting-edge hardware, how many years after it's release?

Crysis has good graphics, but they're not extremely impressive. There are games that have better graphics that run better on both ATI and nVidia machines.
Click to expand...

Lol. Ignorance is bliss.
 
RADEoN said:
Crysis is poorly coded, regardless of what people think. It's bias towards one brand, and even then it runs averagely on their cutting-edge hardware, how many years after it's release?

Crysis has good graphics, but they're not extremely impressive. There are games that have better graphics that run better on both ATI and nVidia machines.
Click to expand...

Do point us to ANY game that looks better than Crysis...

There's no such thing...yet!
 
RADEoN said:
Crysis is poorly coded, regardless of what people think. It's bias towards one brand, and even then it runs averagely on their cutting-edge hardware, how many years after it's release?

Crysis has good graphics, but they're not extremely impressive. There are games that have better graphics that run better on both ATI and nVidia machines.
Click to expand...

Ran decently on high end 8800's, 9800's and runs great on 260's and 280's. It is a beefy engine that pushes hardware.

It is smooth on my 285.
 
I would like to see some tests on the card to make a final decision, but having 2GB of ram makes the card attractive.
 
anime4u said:
I would like to see some tests on the card to make a final decision, but having 2GB of ram makes the card attractive.
Click to expand...
unless you are running sli or tri sli with these at 2560 theres nothing that should be attractive about it for gaming.
 
Would like to see reviews based on the card.

2GB sounds more than enough for modern games out there. :eek:
 
[H]ardOCP on GTAVI - "...the game still performs rather horribly compared to more recent games. There are theories as to why it may of course, but no real proof why it behaves like it does. One theory is that the engine itself just isn’t geared or optimized for the PC that well. Another valid theory is that the game relies heavily on the CPU, and thus that is what is holding the game back. We’ve seen this theory be the reality in a couple of games, such as Flight Simulator X and The Sims series in the past."

It is possible that this is a bad port, or is CPU limited. So either way, it can run like crap on modern hardware and not necessarily be the fault of the user.

As for Crysis, remember what Far Cry did if you cranked all its settings up? Or Doom III Ultra (which was mostly pointless IMO but still)? Nowadays we laugh at those games even though they made our systems beg for mercy when they first arrived.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top