256mb X1800XT vs 512mb X1800XT

[Sonikku]

I'm curious how much real-world difference there is between these two variants. I remember in the X800XL days where 512mb did not do much of anything that 256 could not do. Although games have changed a great deal since then and I'm wondering if it's worth going the extra mile for it. It's my opinion that all the extra features in the world don't account for much if you can't see or measure the difference. What I am looking for are some apples to apples comparisons.

 

[LW07]

I think that the extra memory wouldn't affect performace now, but it might affect performance in the future. I probably would just get the 512mb version.

 

[1Dark1Sharigan1]

I would only matter at resolutions above 1600x1200 with high AA/AF . . .

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: LW07
I think that the extra memory wouldn't affect performace now, but it might affect performance in the future. I probably would just get the 512mb version.

Originally posted by: 1Dark1Sharigan1
I would only matter at resolutions above 1600x1200 with high AA/AF . . .

wrong on both accounts.

i used to think the same, however from my personal exp. and from what i've read, it does indeed make a difference. there are several threads here, as well as multiple articles on the web which will show/explain.

i posted benchmarks comparing 256mb vs 512mb in FEAR and CoD2, but it's late and i'm too lazy atm to find the thread.

i do have one of the reviews i spoke of bookmarked, however it compares 256 vs 512 in nv cards (i'd read somewhere ati has more gains from add'l memory), in which they state, "In every game under different testing methods we saw that 512MB does make a difference, and in some cases a large one. Quake 4?s performance increases in Ultra mode were the most impressive here, but HL2: Lost Coast also showed some credible boosts. F.E.A.R was not so impressive but in real world testing 512Mb showed its worth, especially on a system with 1GB RAM."

link