128 vs. 256mb's of video ram

[drpootums]

I would like to get a 6800 for my new build. I dont have much money for a GT, so it would be nice if i could save the money and get the nu. I'm worried about the lack of video ram, but i've heard from a few people that the extra ram really only helps above resolutions like 1024x768 or 1240x1080 (or whatever). I've also heard that games that use the new Unreal engine wont run on only 128 mb's, and if they do run they wont very good. I just want to clarify all of this. I know that 256 mb's is kinda the future, but 128 should last for another 3 years right?

Games i'm looking into: ES4: Oblivion
Anything using the new Unreal engine
well...any new things in a year or 2 from now

Thx!

 

[nRollo]

3 years?!
I'd say get a GT.

 

[drpootums]

fine, 2 or 3

 

[Concillian]

Look at it this way:
right now the difference is pretty minimal unless at 1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF
(reference: http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/rv410/index.php?p=6 long article, but note where the x700 pro 256MB catches the x700XT)

Right now it's questionable that you'd be able to play at those resolutions with the cheaper card.
3 years from now you sure as hell won't be able to play at higher resolutions

Buying for the future is always risky and my own experience has been that more often than not it is not worth the extra money when you are specifically spending for the future.

Even so, most games will let you independently reduce the texture quality, which can free up some frame buffer without causing too significant a visual quality degradation. I'd make the decision more on the clock speeds you feel you need than the amount of memory.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: Concillian
Look at it this way:
right now the difference is pretty minimal unless at 1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF
(reference: http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/rv410/index.php?p=6 long article, but note where the x700 pro 256MB catches the x700XT)

Right now it's questionable that you'd be able to play at those resolutions with the cheaper card.
3 years from now you sure as hell won't be able to play at higher resolutions

Buying for the future is always risky and my own experience has been that more often than not it is not worth the extra money when you are specifically spending for the future.

Even so, most games will let you independently reduce the texture quality, which can free up some frame buffer without causing too significant a visual quality degradation. I'd make the decision more on the clock speeds you feel you need than the amount of memory.

x700xt vs x700pro 256mb isnt really a fair comparison of 128mb vs 256mb doesnt the XT have a faster core? I tried to glance around for a good review to help you see the difference this will make but couldnt find one that is relatively fair. I would look at the anandtech benchmarks of the regular 6800 vs the 6800 gt (since these are the cards you are considering.)

I chose to get a regular 6800 because the difference isnt so great at low resolutions (actually for the 6800 OC/ASUS its almost non existant) you begin to show problems in current games at about 1600 x 1200 well actually you more than begin to show problems you basically take a near sudden nose dive. However I play doom 3 at 1000x700 on high with everything on and 2x AA and my framerates stay pretty steady usually above 60 and only below if a good number of models jump on the screen I would probably ditch the AA for deathmatch.

 

[Concillian]

x700 pro vs. x700XT is the closest I could find. The xt is only 400 Mpixels/sec faster and 3GB/sec faster.

But you can consider than if the x700 pro is actually faster then there is a REAL difference attributable to the memory, and not to anything else, as the x700 pro is slower by clock speeds.

 

[VIAN]

not another one of these, just search 128 on the forums and see what you get.

 

[MysticX23]

if you can, just go for the 256. just look at a few years ago. we thought 128mb was ALOT. now its standard. in a year or so, 256 will look standard, espeically with LCD prices going down. just a suggestion.

 

[Ishamori]

Originally posted by: MysticX23
if you can, just go for the 256. just look at a few years ago. we thought 128mb was ALOT. now its standard. in a year or so, 256 will look standard, espeically with LCD prices going down. just a suggestion.

A 256mb card now may seem a good investment over the 128mb for the future. Yes 256mb may be the standard, but what of the graphics chicpset itself, it'd be considered yesterday's technology.

 

[kamranziadar]

256MB Would help in the future games, but it is not work double the amount of 128MB

 

[Gamingphreek]

Only get 256mb for cards that only have 256mb available (ie GT XT PRO Ultra). THe highend bunch. Getting them for the lower end the 6600s the 5700's X700s 9600's and lower really cant utilze all of it. Also the added latency just reduces performance. Only get it if you are getting a top of the line card, most of the others aren't worth it.

-Kevin

 

[uOpt]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here:

in the old days you needed more video RAM for more resolution. But that is not really the case anymore. 1600x1200 in 32 bit take 8 megabytes of video buffer. That was a big deal when you had video cards with 16 MB overall, but it isn't anymore.

There days you use the video memory for textures, and -more importantly- uncompressed textures. The difference is most obvious with Doom3 where 128 MB video cards always mean medium quality and 256 MB video cards most of the time mean high quality.

However, if you have a slow card then you will probably still not be able to use the high quality option in Doom3 as you need twice the memory bandwidth and AGP bandwith to actually make use of twice the RAM without slowdown.

I also doubt there are games besides Doom3 which allow you to actually fill up 256 MB of memory. If a game doesn't offer you control over this it is probably pretty much random and there will be neither a speed nor quality advantage to having 256 MB.

The only time that 256 always makes sense if you have an application which is using gazillions of textures but doesn't have big speed requirements. The most common example are modifications of older games. The modmakers usually don't control texture groth at all and they do not obey to any of the tradeoffs that the original game developer made to keep texture usage at what they expect users to have for video memory. Examples are Combat Mission, and probably RedOrchestra for UT2004 which is blowing memory like made, and probably texture memory, too.

But even in the latter cases, if an older game which now has CPU overkill is overloaded with textures, then it might stay playable even if it trashes texture in video RAM.

Or in one sentense: only get 256 MB RAM if you have the memory bandwith and general GPU horsepower. Personally I would get 256 MB only in a 6800 GT, maybe in a 6800, but not below that.

 

[drpootums]

ok, thx, i think i will go with the nu for now, and if i feel the need to upgrade, i can just use the eVGA step-up program to upgrade. THX all!