256MB Video Cards Worth It?

[InternetOwl]

Do people here think it might be worth it to upgrade to one of the 256MB mainstream (whether ATI 9600XT or NVIDIA 5700 Ultra) cards for upcoming games like Doom3 and Half-Life 2? Is the extra RAM only useful at very high resolutions (1600X1200) with AA and AF on, or can it actually help in just leveling out the frame rates on these cards. I know that with the current games that statement is pretty much true, but what do you guys think about the new games coming out like Doom3, etc.?

Thanks.

 

[Corporate Thug]

very few games take advantage of 256. the only way i would buy one is if i got in on a really good deal like that ~$215 9800 por 256 mb @ amazon

 

[VIAN]

In Call of Duty, 256MB will be 20fps difference compared to 128MB.

All in game settings high and run at 1600x1200 4xAA 8xAF.

This is of course with a 9800 Pro. Slower mainstream cards should be more worried about other stuff, like GPU power.

At 1600x1200, you only experience a performance hit due to lack of memory if you turn up the AA to 4x. Idk, however, about setting the AF to 16x, cause no one does reviews that use 16x.

At 1280x1024, you also experience a performance hit due to lack of memory if you turn up the AA to 4x, but it's about 5fps difference and no greater than 10fps. Lower resolutions don't experience performance hits with 4xAA enabled.

 

[Insomniak]

Nope.

My 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti still screams at everything out there these days.

 

[ZombieJesus]

Do not bother buying an expensive 256 mb videocard right now. No real performance difference at the moment. Waiting for the next cores (r423, nV4x) would be better if you want to spend that kind of cash for a 256 mb card. After all a core change only happens every 2 years or so.

 

[VIAN]

what are you talking about, core changes happen every year.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Let's be realistic here, there is a difference between something comming out, and the need to upgrade. If you're in the market now, a 128mb card will be FINE.

 

[ZombieJesus]

The r300 came out around sept 2002 no? and the r420 will be out april perhaps? That is about 1.5 years. It might not happen every 2 years but it does not happen every year either.

 

[Soulkeeper]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Nope.

My 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti still screams at everything out there these days.

yeah, that's what i'm talkin bout !!

 

[VIAN]

That was one instance.

1996 - Voodoo
1998 - Voodoo 2
1998 - TNT
1999 - Voodoo 3
1999 - TNT2
1999 - Geforce
2000 - Geforce 2
2000 - Voodoo 5
2000 - Voodoo 4
2000 - Radeon
2001 - Geforce 3
2001 - Radeon 8500
2002 - Geforce 4
2002 - Radeon 9700
2003 - Geforce FX 5800
2003 - Radeon 9800
2003 - Geforce FX 5900
2004 - Nv40
2004 - R420

It's pretty much year after year except a few hicups.

 

[CaiNaM]

in some few odd cases the extra 128mb does make a difference, but these cases are few and far between, and often its the difference between 20 fps and 25 (since you have to run at such extreme "quality" settings... and frankly neither of those is something i would find acceptable, or common - exaclty why do you need to run 6x aa @ 1600x1200?

if you feel that you want 256mb to make your purchase more "future proof" i'd rather recommend waiting for the nv40/r420, as again there is little difference in performance, and at this time, only on rare occasions, such as CoD w/ "large" textures.

imo, by the time 256mb will make a significant difference, there will be other areas in this generation of video cards which will be far more lacking.

 

[Excelsior]

With the next generation, having 256MB may prove to be more useful. As of now, GPUs just aren't fast enough, seeing as you need to run 1600x1200 with AA and AF to really see the 256MB help. I may get a 256MB R420 or NV40 depending on how the reviews/comparisons between 128MB versions turn out.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: VIAN
That was one instance.

1996 - Voodoo
1998 - Voodoo 2
1998 - TNT
1999 - Voodoo 3
1999 - TNT2
1999 - Geforce
2000 - Geforce 2
2000 - Voodoo 5
2000 - Voodoo 4
2000 - Radeon
2001 - Geforce 3
2001 - Radeon 8500
2002 - Geforce 4
2002 - Radeon 9700
2003 - Geforce FX 5800
2003 - Radeon 9800
2003 - Geforce FX 5900
2004 - Nv40
2004 - R420

It's pretty much year after year except a few hicups.

put in the months also... it will make many of your examples closer to 2 years than 1... and a "refresh" is hardly considered a "new" gpu, unless you consider a new gpu with minor enhancements "new"... the 9700 is still the same basic gpu as the 9800 series....

 

[BFG10K]

My 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti still screams at everything out there these days.

It's probably screaming in pain.

 

[Gagabiji]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

My 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti still screams at everything out there these days.

It's probably screaming in pain.

 

[Ackmed]

Like previously stated, you will probably only notice a increase in FPS with high res and AA/AF on. At 1280x104 and especially 1600x1200 with 4xAA/8xAF there will be a good increase in frames with a 128meg card vs. a 256meg card, and thats a fact. It also varies from game to game on how much of an increase there is.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Nope.

My 128 MB GeForce 4 Ti still screams at everything out there these days.

 

[bpt8056]

It makes me wonder why they even bother adding an additional 128 MB to their cards. I know it's a marketing gimmick, but why don't they just add another 64MB instead and make it a total of 192MB? Wouldn't that be sufficient for a game like COD with extremely high graphics enabled and future games as well? Just wondering since that could be a wise move especially when you consider the cost.

 

[modedepe]

Not worth it. The only cards I would get with 256mb is either a 9800 or a 5900, or wait till the new gen is out. Midrange cards won't be able to run 16x12 with high doses of aa and af anyways, so the memory will hardly be an advantage.

 

[VIAN]

----------------------- 3dfx ------
1996, October ---- Voodoo
1998, March ------- Voodoo2
1999, April --------- Voodoo3
2000, May --------- Voodoo4/5

1 year and 5 months; 1 year and 1 month; 1 year and 1 month

------------------------ ATI ------------
2000, July ---------- Radeon
2001, October ----- Radeon 8500
2002, July ---------- Radeon 9700
2003, March ------- Radeon 9800

1 year and 3 months; 9 months; 8 months

------------------------ Nvidia ----------
1999, September - Geforce
2000, April --------- Geforce2
2001, March ------- Geforce3
2002, February --- Geforce4
2003, January ---- Geforce FX 5800
2003, May - Geforce FX 5900

7 months; 11 months; 11 months; 11 months; 4 months

Is that better. The 9800 is not a refresh. You might think it is, but it has the same type of changes that are talked about in the upcoming R420. A refresh is the same card with a clock speed increase and nothing more.

 

[PCTweaker5]

That is your opinion on a refresh. I think it is a refresh as well as the 5800 and 5900's. Im sure the upcoming ATI's will have more changes rather than just a few core tweaks.

 

[fsstrike]

Look at it performance wise, the 9700 and 9800 have very close performance according to the benchmarks. At best the 9800 is mabye 10% better than the 9700 and thats will AA and AF turned on. Basically, they have very similar performance thus confirming that the 9800 is a refresh. For instance, the 8500 to 9700 is NOT a refresh. The GeForce4 to GeForceFX 5900 is NOT a refresh. A 9700 to 9800 IS a refresh, as with a 9800pro to a 9800XT.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: VIAN

Is that better. The 9800 is not a refresh. You might think it is, but it has the same type of changes that are talked about in the upcoming R420. A refresh is the same card with a clock speed increase and nothing more.

yes.. accuracy is always good

however, if you think the 9800 is a different gpu and not a refresh.. well, i guess i'm curious what constitutes a "new" gpu by your definition.

the 9800 quite similar to 9700; much more similar than not. it increases the core speed by 55MHz and uses memory that's 30MHz faster (well, double that, since it's DDR). ati points to other enhancements that improve efficiency, but it's the same architecture (r3xx) and the clock speed account for the majority of the difference. it basically "tweaks" a few things and adds an f buffer... which seems hardly worth considering it as something "new" vs a "refresh".

do you also consider the 9800xt a "new gpu" rather than a "refresh" as well? they did after all rework some data paths and transisters.. oh, and they added a thermal diode

i see the r300, r350, r360 as the same gpu..

 

[xSauronx]

its only worth it if i can get this amazon deal through....

 

[modedepe]

I always thought a "refresh" was basically just a speed bump, not a change for core. For example gf3 to gf3 ti500 for a refresh. I would probably call a 9700 to 9800 a new gpu, even if there isn't a huge speed increase, just cause it IS a changed core.