128 or 256?

[conorvansmack]

I know this seems a redundant question, but I remember reading that some 128mb cards were faster than their 256mb counterparts (same chip). Any links or reviews would be helpful and appreciated. I haven't been able to find much.

Basically, what I'm asking is would I be better off buying a card with 128mb or 256mb?

 

[SneakyStuff]

128MB, the RAM is usually faster. Exceptions would be cards like the 5950, 5900, and 9800pro and XT models.

 

[BFG10K]

For this generation 128 MB is fine although if you can get a good deal on 256 MB, go for it.

 

[conorvansmack]

I'm looking at a Sapphire 9600pro. My board is an Epox KT133A, so anything faster would really be a waste, whereas this upgrade wouldn't be wasting as much of the card's potential. At least that what I think. Am I right?

The 256mb version of the card is only $15 more than the 128mb.

 

[modedepe]

The 256mb version of the 9600 pro has only 400mhz memory, vs the usual 600mhz memory on the 128mb version, so definitely go with the 128mb version. I wouldn't really look at getting 256mb on anything less than a 5900 or a 9800.

 

[Pete]

It's quite simple: if the clock speeds are the same for both versions, they should perform similarly. It's just that 256MB cards usually sport slower memory (AIBs think they can get away with that--and do--b/c ppl are blinded by the bigger memory size number on the front of the box), or present worse overclocking opportunities (perhaps b/c of more chips to OC, or less power for the card, or just lower-spec'ed memory).

 

[Schadenfroh]

256mb on a 9600 is a joke

 

[conorvansmack]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
256mb on a 9600 is a joke

Any particular reason why? You aren't offering any evidence, theoretical or otherwise.

 

[JackHawksmoor]

Even with a Radeon 9800 or a Geforce 5900 there's not that huge of a benefit in going from 128 to 256MB, but there's a HUGE benefit in going from a Geforce 5700/Radeon 9600 to a Geforce 5900/Radeon 9800, so the extra money should be spent on the higher end card, not extra RAM. That's assuming that the RAM on the 256MB cards is clocked the same. If it's clocked slower, than your overall performance is going to tank.

What really pisses me off are these Geforce 5200s with 256MB. That's INSANE and is just a marketing gimmick. A Geforce 4 with 64MB would be at least twice as fast.

 

[conorvansmack]

Here's the info I'm working with. 128mb vs. 256mb

I haven't been able to find any specs, info, or reviews that gives me more info than this.

 

[Pete]

To elaborate on Schadenfroh's reply, paying more for 256MB on a card as slow as a 9600 is a joke. At that performance level, any extra money you have is better spent on a faster card that will be enjoyed all the time, not on more memory that will be enjoyed once in a blue moon.

The 128MB Pro is 400/600MHz. The 256MB card is 400/660, so it should be faster (if the specs are correct, as higher speed memory on a 256MB card is unusual, so this may be a typo). The $159 9600XT is 500/650, and should be even faster.

If you have a 300W PSU, though, you'd be better off with this $159 9700. If you want to run dual CRTs off the video card, consider paying the extra $10 for the retail version, as it includes a DVI-VGA adapter (and an S-video cable). If every $ counts and you don't need the S-video or composite cables, get the OEM version and add a DVI-VGA converter for $7. You can see on Allstarshop's pages for both cards that the 9700 is superior to both the 9600P and XT with AA+AF, mainly because of its far greater memory bandwidth (256-bit 540MHz vs. 128-bit 600-650MHz).

If you can spend more, NewEgg sells a Powercolor 9700 Pro for $183.

 

[nick1985]

the 256 meg 9600pros are SLOWER than the 128's. they use slow memory hoping foolish people(no offense) just see 256 card and go crazy and buy it.

all the benchmarks you could ever want

^
^
proof the 128 PWNS the 256

 

[MajorCatastrophe]

Originally posted by: conorvansmack

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
256mb on a 9600 is a joke

Any particular reason why? You aren't offering any evidence, theoretical or otherwise.

Because the reasons for having that extra RAM is so you can store more high resolution textures in graphics card memory and run with better AA modes for example. The trouble with cards like the 9600 or low/mid range nVidia cards is they don't really have the horsepower to render with those memory hungry features at decent frame rates, so you'll end up not using them anyway. Obviously that depends on the game, but games coming out that'll really benefit from that extra RAM will make those low/mid range GPUs struggle however much RAM they've got.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Cards are more than just memory, an example are the pitiful FX 256mb 5200 and 5600 models, why wouldnt they beat a 128 mb 9700 pro? Simple, because the GPU of the 9700 pro is MASSIVELY better than that of the 5200 and 5600. The GPU along with the memory is what gives you a good card. Just look at the link nick gave you, I think that's proof enough.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: MajorCatastrophe

Originally posted by: conorvansmack

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
256mb on a 9600 is a joke

Any particular reason why? You aren't offering any evidence, theoretical or otherwise.

Because the reasons for having that extra RAM is so you can store more high resolution textures in graphics card memory and run with better AA modes for example. The trouble with cards like the 9600 or low/mid range nVidia cards is they don't really have the horsepower to render with those memory hungry features at decent frame rates, so you'll end up not using them anyway. Obviously that depends on the game, but games coming out that'll really benefit from that extra RAM will make those low/mid range GPUs struggle however much RAM they've got.

This guy is on target: the reason you don't need 256MB on a 9600Pro is that it's not powerful enough to run settings that would exceed a 128 MB framebuffer. If the game was old enough that you could run some fine 6XAA at 16X12 on a 9600Pro, the textures will likely still fit in 128MB. If the game is new enough to exceed the 128MB, the 9600 is too slow to run it at those settings.

 

[VIAN]

On Call of Duty which has enough textures to topple a 128MB card, only runs well on a high end card for ex.

Using a 9700 Pro or 5900. You have to run the game at 1280x1024 4xAA to start the water boiling over the 128MB pot. There won't be too much of a performance decrease about 5-10 frames and up to 20 frames when run 1600x1200 4xAA, 8xAA.

Using those settings is makes playing too hard so I just used 1280x1024 2xAA 8xAA with texture settings on High only - gives it a smoother play.

On my machine (link in sig) I can get 80fps indoors, but only 40fps outdoors AVERAGE, sometimes dipping to 30, so imagine a slower card such as the 9600 Pro. To run at those settings where it would start to use the 256MBs, it would probably run at 25fps AVERAGE or less on my system when outdoors. That would be unplayable. Imagine going even lower to the 5200. It would definitely be unplayable.

The marketing gimmick most definitely works. I met someone the other day at my job saying he was proud of his 5200 256MB. He was like - It was fast. And I was like - It is the worst card in the line up. These people don't know what to look for. All they know is Clock Speed for CPUs and MBs for VPUs and that's it.

OT: You know, Intel is really pissing me off with their knew naming system. Because it makes no sense and it isn't based on performance that anyone can tell. It will be too confusing to customers. Also, retail boxes will tell the clockspeed on the box anyway. Moving away from GHz, yeah right. They are just trying to increase sales of the Pentium M. But they did it in such a way that they would not cripple the sales of the Celeron. Losers. Always tricking the customers.

 

[conorvansmack]

Thanks for all the great advice and info! I had a feeling that the 9600's processor wouldn't have much use for 256mb.

I'm leaning towards a 9600pro or 9700, but the budget may dictate that for me.

 

[PCTweaker5]

What IS your budget?

 

[conorvansmack]

I'd like to keep the video card under $160.

My wife hates my computer and thinks I've already spent enough on it. I've given up trying to explain upgrading and the reasons for it.

 

[VIAN]

Here

My wife hates my computer and thinks I've already spent enough on it. I've given up trying to explain upgrading and the reasons for it.

LOL

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Here

that's silly; the 9600xt is barely marginally better than a 9600pro. 9700pro or oc'd 5900se/xt/nu are significantly faster. while it's a refurb, i'd go with something like this. it's within your paramters, and is an excellent price/performance card.

if you can go just a bit over your price ceiling, you might consider this or this.

i would recommend staying away from anything ati that's <=9600xx or anything nvidia that's <=5700. that's my opinion owning and living with a 9600pro, 9700pro, 9800pro, and 5900nu.

 

[VIAN]

9600 Pro
For 30 bucks less, you can get the 9600 Pro which is about 5fps slower than the 9600 XT.

Good work CaiNaM. I overlooked that the similarity in performance.

I wouldn't trust refurbished. It's an uneeded possible hassle.

I chose a card within his price range according to Newegg. Although, I do agree that anything under a 9700 or 5900 XT is a waste.

 

[PCTweaker5]

Originally posted by: conorvansmack
I'd like to keep the video card under $160.

My wife hates my computer and thinks I've already spent enough on it. I've given up trying to explain upgrading and the reasons for it.

You should hear my dad! Everytime I add things to it he says Im messing it up. Everytime I have a problem he says its because I keep adding crap to it which may be true to some extent but he just doesnt understand this hobby.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: VIAN
9600 Pro
For 30 bucks less, you can get the 9600 Pro which is about 5fps slower than the 9600 XT.

Good work CaiNaM. I overlooked that the similarity in performance.

I wouldn't trust refurbished. It's an uneeded possible hassle.

I chose a card within his price range according to Newegg. Although, I do agree that anything under a 9700 or 5900 XT is a waste.

well, I only included that due to the # of of posts from ppl in this forum who have stated very good results from getting refurbs from newegg.

 

[Blastman]

The memory speed of 660MHz for the Sapphire 256MB 9600pro at Newegg is a misprint. As pointed out, 256MB 9600pro?s have much slower 200MHz DDR (equivalent 400MHz), 128MB 9600pro?s have 300MHz DDR (equivalent 600MHz).

That Sapphire 9600pro 128MB is a nice card for $129, although the 9700pro for not too much more would be a good jump in performance.