256mb 9800 EVER gonna be useful?

[Thor86]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Uh, all games use it and in most cases it's automatic since the drivers and operating system control the memory heirarchy. If there's space on the card then it'll always get used first, ahead of system memory.

Uhh, then why is there no difference in performance between 128mb and 256mb cards on the games benchmarked in all the reviews?

 

[gregor7777]

Originally posted by: Thor86

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Uh, all games use it and in most cases it's automatic since the drivers and operating system control the memory heirarchy. If there's space on the card then it'll always get used first, ahead of system memory.

Uhh, then why is there no difference in performance between 128mb and 256mb cards on the games benchmarked in all the reviews?

I remember last Jan/Feb when I bought my Ti200 w/128 mb ram we all had this EXACT same conversation. Now (a year and a half later) is there ANY discussion which is better, 64 or 128? No, there is not.

 

[mooncancook]

not long ago I thought 32MB of video memory is good enough, and 64MB is almost overkilled. but look now, 32MB is about the minimum to run a new 3D game, and who knows what is the minimum amount of memory to run Doom III and Half Life 2. I think if you can afford 256MB then go for it.

 

[Richdog]

Its getting ridiculous, by the time you need 256 MB of ram on that card, the next latest and greatest card will already be out and the card will look slow. But by all means, waste your money if you like.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

i bet that new game thats coming out sometime soon (cant say the name, might get in trouble) might make use of all that video memory.

JB

 

[RollWave]

I've read quite a few reports in different forums that this DDR-II ram 256MB model may seem the same as the normal 128MB version in its core settings but the 256mb has HELLA overclockability and can be raised to a point where performance is increased about 30%. Grab this card and a videocard cooler and you're set for QUITE some time!

 

[BenSkywalker]

Back buffer- 1600x1200x32x6= 368,640,000/8/1024/1024= 43.95MB
Z Buffer- 1600x1200x32x6= 368,640,000/8/1024/1024= 43.95MB
Front Buffer- 1600x1200x32= 61,440,000/8/1024/1024= 7.32MB

43.95+43.95+7.32= 95.22MB

128MB- 95.22MB = 32.78MB For all texture data, vertex data, vertex shader programs and pixel shader programs. 256MB is useful now.

 

[Thor86]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Back buffer- 1600x1200x32x6= 368,640,000/8/1024/1024= 43.95MB
Z Buffer- 1600x1200x32x6= 368,640,000/8/1024/1024= 43.95MB
Front Buffer- 1600x1200x32= 61,440,000/8/1024/1024= 7.32MB

43.95+43.95+7.32= 95.22MB

128MB- 95.22MB = 32.78MB For all texture data, vertex data, vertex shader programs and pixel shader programs. 256MB is useful now.

Assuming you have zero megs of system memory.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Assuming you have zero megs of system memory.

????

If you are paying $400 for a video card, you want to be limited by 2GB/sec bandwith if you are running an AGP 8x mobo and 1GB/sec with a 4x?

The geometry throughput of the R350 core demands that vertex data be buffered in on board memory to come anywhwere remotely close to the theoretical throughput. AGP 8x has enough bandwith to handle about 30Mil-36Mil polys/sec. If you are limited to using system memory for texturing your speed will be comparable to an Intel i810 integrated graphics chip, a performance gap that most people who have never seen a game before would catch. For pixel shader programs the potential for poorer performance still exists. If you are running a shader that requires that data be written out to memory and then read back again, then you are limited to ~512MB/sec write speed using system memory, that is less then a 64bit FX 5200 non Ultra, the ~$80 budget boards. Doesn't matter if you have 4GBs sec of the fastest system memory you can buy. Looking at a $400 v $500 graphics board the difference in 128MB to 256MB can make an enormous difference in performance under certain circumstances.

 

[spclwpns]

With Summer coming up, I'm going to wait a gen or 2. The 256m version is GOING to run hot. Without the need for it now, I'll skip it till winter......

 

[Zap]

The 256 MB also might be useful as a frame buffer if you run very high resolutions, like 1600x1200

8MB is enough for a frame buffer at 1600x1200x32 bit color

1600pixels x 1200pixels x 32bitcolor = 61440000bits
61440000bitx = 7680000bytes = 7500kilobytes =~ 7.324megabytes

This only has to do with amount of RAM. Some video chip designs cannot do certain settings, plus RAMDAC and overall PCB card/component quality will affect display.

To answer the original question... If I had $550 to spend on a video card to last me two years, I'd spend around $300-350 now for something in that price range (Radeon 9700 Pro 128MB ???). The extra money would go into an interest-generating account/investment. This time next year I'd sell the current card and combine that money with the money set aside this year and get something faster than the best 256MB card out now.

 

[BFG10K]

Uhh, then why is there no difference in performance between 128mb and 256mb cards on the games benchmarked in all the reviews?

Because the benchmarks aren't testing the right kinds of situations.

To render a double-buffered 1600 x 1200 x 32 scene with a 24/8 bit Z/stencil it takes approximately 1600 x 1200 x 64 x 2 = 30 MB of space. Throw in 6XAA, loads of textures (UT2003 can use up to 160 MBs' worth), geometry data, vertex/pixel shaders and you'll easily exceed 128 MB VRAM.

Assuming you have zero megs of system memory.

LOL! Can I interest you in an Intel Extreme graphics accelerator?

8MB is enough for a frame buffer at 1600x1200x32 bit color

Only in 2D mode, 3D is a completely different ballgame.