128MB v. 256MB

[imported_JohnDoe]

Hi,

could someone explain to me how much the memory outfitting affects a cards performance?

More specific, how well does a e.g. a 6600 with 256Mb compares to a 6800 with 128MB?
The price difference, at least in Germany, is not so significant for these configurations.

Also, I miss the memory specifications for the tests performed here at AnandTech, is
there something like a default memory outfitting?

Christian

 

[RadiclDreamer]

If you are running a 6800. you will want the more memory, if you have games that use mass amounts of textures, you want more memory. If you play doom3 or farcry, get more memory. If you can afford it, get more memory

 

[imported_JohnDoe]

Yes, I know that any given card will perform better with more memory due to textures. But that doesn't refer exactly to my question, which was how a not-so-good card with 256MB performs compared to a good card with only 128MB.

Thanks anyway.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: JohnDoe
Hi,

could someone explain to me how much the memory outfitting affects a cards performance?

More specific, how well does a e.g. a 6600 with 256Mb compares to a 6800 with 128MB?
The price difference, at least in Germany, is not so significant for these configurations.

Also, I miss the memory specifications for the tests performed here at AnandTech, is
there something like a default memory outfitting?

Christian

If the price is the same, get the 6800NU.

What Radicldreamer is forgetting is that a a game/setting where you would need 256MB of RAM is not one a 6600 can play. Also, he's apparently forgetting that the 6600 has 128MB memory access compared to the 6800NUs 256bit.

The AT article unfortunately picked many 16X12 setting that you would never run either of these card at. Look at Far Cry

Check out the 6600 vs 6800 Far Cry scores:
10X7 4X 6600GT=59fps 6800NU= 86fps 6800NU stomps
12X10 4X 6600GT=38fps 6800NU=57fps 6800NU stomps
16X12 4X 6600GT= 25fps 6800NU=27fps OMFG! The 6600GT is just as fast! Errrrr....you can't really play at 25 or 27fps now, can you? And who plays without AA these days?

What about Doom3, our other texture poster child?

Doom3
10X4X8X HiQ 6600GT=70fps 6800NU=78fps no practical difference
12X10 4X8X HiQ 6600GT= 49fps 6800NU= 61fps 20% is a nice victory for 6800NU at this setting
16x12 4X8X HiQ 6600GT=34fps 6800NU = 43fps 6800NU is only one that comes close to playable here

Anyway, check out the rest of the review OP. I think you'll agree the 6800 is a much better choice for 12X10 with some AA/AF, and that 16X12 is beyond the reach of these cards.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

he well if u were gonna get a 9600 with 256 mb or a 9800 with only a 128mb then the 9800 would seriously pwn the 9600 more memory or not

apprently 128mb cards cant run 3dmark 03 in demo mode with 4xaa and at 16x12...there simply not enough memory....not that anyones bothered bout demo mode

the 9600 may have enough memory but wont have the power to handle 1600x1200 with 4xaa anyway

 

[imported_JohnDoe]

Rollo:

Check out the 6600 vs 6800 Far Cry scores:
10X7 4X 6600GT=59fps 6800NU= 86fps 6800NU stomps
12X10 4X 6600GT=38fps 6800NU=57fps 6800NU stomps
16X12 4X 6600GT= 25fps 6800NU=27fps OMFG! The 6600GT is just as fast! Errrrr....you can't really play at 25 or 27fps now, can you? And who plays without AA these days?

And this is exactly where I wonder how it would look if the 6800 employed only 128MB while the 6600 could access 256MB!

- How would the performance differ?
- Could the 6600 use high quality textures for the price of non-antialising while the 6800 could only use
medium quality textures but provide antaliasing instead?
- Also, as you implied (did you?), would employing high quality textures with the 6600 make sense at
all, since th 6600 has only 128Bit memory access?

Finally, what do you mean by 6800NU, never heard about that, "non ultra"?

cheers, Christian

 

[BentValve]

Its really a catch 22...the only time 256mb of ram would be needed is at 1600x1200 with everything maxed out and even then I am not sure its all needed.

The fact is really no card out right now can play the most difficult rendering games at this setting , therefore 256mb of ram is a waste....well not really a waste but you have a good excuse to save a few bucks of the opportunity is there.


I say wait awhile, 6800NUs will probably drop to $199 and less soon enough.

 

[VIAN]

To use such a high memory amount, you would need lots of Bandwidth, which is something the 6600 doesn't have.

There are very few games that require 256MB of RAM to play at high quality, and you would start to see it at 1280x1024 w/4xAA & 8xAF applied w/ all in game settings at the highest.

This is true in Call of Duty.
I think this is true in UT2004.
This is true in Doom III.
I think this is true in Far Cry.

About 20GBps of Bandwidth is good enough for 128MBs of RAM. You would need something significantly higher, probably double to efficiently handle 256MBs of RAM.

 

[imported_Computer MAn]

Like others have said I've found that the extra memory starts to come into play at 16x12 or with AA on. I also think the only cards that can use 256mb effectively are the X800 and 6800 series

 

[Ishamori]

Nice thread. Very informative read. Thanks to all!

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: JohnDoe
Rollo:

Check out the 6600 vs 6800 Far Cry scores:
10X7 4X 6600GT=59fps 6800NU= 86fps 6800NU stomps
12X10 4X 6600GT=38fps 6800NU=57fps 6800NU stomps
16X12 4X 6600GT= 25fps 6800NU=27fps OMFG! The 6600GT is just as fast! Errrrr....you can't really play at 25 or 27fps now, can you? And who plays without AA these days?

And this is exactly where I wonder how it would look if the 6800 employed only 128MB while the 6600 could access 256MB!

- How would the performance differ?
- Could the 6600 use high quality textures for the price of non-antialising while the 6800 could only use
medium quality textures but provide antaliasing instead?
- Also, as you implied (did you?), would employing high quality textures with the 6600 make sense at
all, since th 6600 has only 128Bit memory access?

Finally, what do you mean by 6800NU, never heard about that, "non ultra"?

cheers, Christian

Hmmm, where do you get this "High vs Medium" textures idea? I can't speak for the 6600GT, but you should always have the 6800NU set on high quality, AA or not. Each card is a good value for it's price bracket, I personally don't think the 128MB on the NU is a big deal as it's not a 16X12 4X8X type card anyway. It does 12X10 4X8X very nicely and that is a pretty good setting for what they cost.
As far as the 6600 goes, my 5800U had similar clocks and 128bit access, I always ran high quality, just never ran more than 2X AA.

6800NU is the way the plain 6800 12pipe, 128MB card is referred to here.

 

[stelleg151]

Ah, very informative thread. So basically, a x700pro at x700xt speeds wouldnt be that much a difference in performance?? I read on one review that the guy noticed small amounts of slowing down on the 128mb cards that he didnt notice on the 256 cards in high rendering situations in CS source, and that makes me feel like maybe the x700pro is the way to go, but most people seem to say 6600gt is better. I dunno, its tough decision.

 

[ronnn]

This is exactly what I am trying to decide. In Vancouver are some good (relative) deals on the chaintech 6800 factory oc'd model. $355 Canadian. x800pro and 6800gt are all over $500.00. My processor is only a 2.4c at 3.0. I was hoping to upgrade to pci e at christmas, but prices remain high, availability is still low and I am not sure that cpu's have really improved enough to justify that type of outlay. I have need for a second vid card, but hate to dump my 9700pro with a zalman heatpipe. Has been so stable and quiet........... So would I notice the difference?