2gb Nvidia cards pretty rare?

[Dorkenstein]

I've been trying to track down a 2b or 1.7gb GTX 285 but they seem to be out of stock everywhere and have been for as long as I can remember (a few weeks). Are they being phased out or something? Also, is a GTX 275 much slower than a 285? Thanks for any clues.

 

[toyota]

a gtx275 doesnt need more than 896mb of ram unless you are trying to run a couple games at 2560 with lots of AA. honestly though the card will crap itself long before more than 896mb becomes an issue. same goes for the gtx285 1gb. only exception to this would be GTA 4 or if you wanted to run the cards in SLI at 2560x1600 with lots of AA.

you can easily google gtx275 and look at the tons of reviews from various sites to see how it stacks up against the gtx275. to be honest the gtx285 is not remotely worth the extra cost over the gtx275.

 

[Dorkenstein]

Thanks. Do you happen to know if it's difficult/risky to take the stock cooler off a 275 gtx and put on an aftermarket one?

 

[toyota]

Thanks. Do you happen to know if it's difficult/risky to take the stock cooler off a 275 gtx and put on an aftermarket one?

the gtx275 comes with a pretty decent cooler so unless you are really picky it would not be worth the trouble changing.

 

[happy medium]

Here is gtx 275 with 1796mb of memory. A little overclock and you have gtx 285 speeds.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814125293

 

[Dorkenstein]

Thanks. I'm just concerned about how much the card might heat up if I overclock it. Thanks for the link.

 

[zerocool84]

Here is gtx 275 with 1796mb of memory. A little overclock and you have gtx 285 speeds.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814125293

GEEBUS that's a ridiculous price for that card even with that much memory.

 

[toyota]

Thanks. I'm just concerned about how much the card might heat up if I overclock it. Thanks for the link.

for the reasons I listed earlier, that card is not worth the 70 bucks more over the 896mb model.

 

[Dorkenstein]

You mean it's overpriced?

EDIT: Never mind, I get it.

 

[blanketyblank]

I think it might make a difference once nvidia releases their 3d vision surround (eyefinity clone) code. Supposedly should work with their older cards so at 5760 x 1200, 2GB may start making a difference.

 

[toyota]

You mean it's overpriced?

EDIT: Never mind, I get it.

its overpriced and useless unless you are running two of them at 2560.

 

[x3sphere]

I think it might make a difference once nvidia releases their 3d vision surround (eyefinity clone) code. Supposedly should work with their older cards so at 5760 x 1200, 2GB may start making a difference.

Won't really matter, as the older cards will be too slow to drive that kind of resolution, at least with newer titles.

 

[Dorkenstein]

The MSI Lightning GTX 275 looks like an awesome card. Why aren't they for sale anywhere? After several searches, it looks like that card is literally nowhere to be found.

 

[tweakboy]

ANything more then 1GB is not going to be used. Not yet.. but technology will advance more textures higher def... 2GB is really pointless... for now...gl

 

[TemjinGold]

Here is gtx 275 with 1796mb of memory. A little overclock and you have gtx 285 speeds.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814125293

For that kind of money, you are much better off with a 5850 unless you absolutely despise AMD.

 

[blanketyblank]

Won't really matter, as the older cards will be too slow to drive that kind of resolution, at least with newer titles.

I think they will be fairly decent considering you have to buy two and SLI them anyways since that's the only way nvidia is supporting 3 monitors. Granted they probably won't be able to compete with Fermi, and they will be twice as slow if you want to do 3d as well...

 

[taltamir]

I would think the most demand for this is by people trying to run CUDA based programs for business or science purposes who are trying to skimp on buying a tesla platform 🙂

you don't really need 2GB of ram... when it becomes useful, you could sell your used card and buy something much better. Overall you would save money and end with better performance on a newer card then keeping your older card with 2GB.

 

[Seero]

a gtx275 doesnt need more than 896mb of ram unless you are trying to run a couple games at 2560 with lots of AA. honestly though the card will crap itself long before more than 896mb becomes an issue. same goes for the gtx285 1gb. only exception to this would be GTA 4 or if you wanted to run the cards in SLI at 2560x1600 with lots of AA.

you can easily google gtx275 and look at the tons of reviews from various sites to see how it stacks up against the gtx275. to be honest the gtx285 is not remotely worth the extra cost over the gtx275.

That is not true. Games are written in a way which can be played by most video cards in the market, and thus will only use a certain amount of memory. Unlike RAM, there are no page files for VRAM and thus it must not go overboard. Having said that, newer games will require more memory. In other words, more memory means more future proof.

Now if your resolution is at 2560 X 1600, then you more or less need 2Gb of VRAM. This resolution may be a result of multi display or a single XHD display. Both is not too far from the norm, assuming you will keep your card for more than 1 year.

Many eye candy requires data to be fed into VRAM at loading screen, meaning that the more VRAM, the more room for eye candy. Current games utilize 768 Mb iat 1680x1050 at max settings usually, but future games (2010) will probably utilize 1.5Gb at 1680x1050 at max settings.

The real problem of using more memory isn't the hardware, but the software. Many people are still using 32-bit windows and 32-bit program has a softcap at 2gb (lots of PC setup will fail at that usage already), and a hard cap at 4gb (which will not run on 32-bit setup). It isn't far from 64bit apps to come in, and by then, 16gb RAM isn't too much anymore. If engineers can figure out a way to create multiple 32-bit threads, then it may be possible for a 32 bit apps to use more than 2gb, allowing it to produce enrich graphics and utilizing multi-cores. We really should have said bye bye to 32 bit OS and said hello to 64 bit OS 2 years ago.

However, if you really have to buy a new card today, and you don't have a nvidia 3d vision setup, then you should consider ATI as it is more furture proof then any Nvidia product ATM. Buying a 2gb HD5870 makes more sense than a 2gb GTX285 due to tessellation and directcompute. Those are the things that eat VRAM. Yes we don't use them now, but probably in a year or so.

 

[toyota]

That is not true. Games are written in a way which can be played by most video cards in the market, and thus will only use a certain amount of memory. Unlike RAM, there are no page files for VRAM and thus it must not go overboard. Having said that, newer games will require more memory. In other words, more memory means more future proof.

Now if your resolution is at 2560 X 1600, then you more or less need 2Gb of VRAM. This resolution may be a result of multi display or a single XHD display. Both is not too far from the norm, assuming you will keep your card for more than 1 year.

Many eye candy requires data to be fed into VRAM at loading screen, meaning that the more VRAM, the more room for eye candy. Current games utilize 768 Mb iat 1680x1050 at max settings usually, but future games (2010) will probably utilize 1.5Gb at 1680x1050 at max settings.

The real problem of using more memory isn't the hardware, but the software. Many people are still using 32-bit windows and 32-bit program has a softcap at 2gb (lots of PC setup will fail at that usage already), and a hard cap at 4gb (which will not run on 32-bit setup). It isn't far from 64bit apps to come in, and by then, 16gb RAM isn't too much anymore. If engineers can figure out a way to create multiple 32-bit threads, then it may be possible for a 32 bit apps to use more than 2gb, allowing it to produce enrich graphics and utilizing multi-cores. We really should have said bye bye to 32 bit OS and said hello to 64 bit OS 2 years ago.

However, if you really have to buy a new card today, and you don't have a nvidia 3d vision setup, then you should consider ATI as it is more furture proof then any Nvidia product ATM. Buying a 2gb HD4850 makes more sense than a 2gb GTX285 due to tessellation and directcompute. Those are the things that eat VRAM. Yes we don't use them now, but probably in a year or so.

what are you rambling about? I was making a point that having that much on the gtx275 will not result in any more performance. besides GTA 4 the card itself is NOT strong enough to run any games at settings that would end up needing more than 896mb. at 2560x1600 and 8x or 16x AA you are going to want a faster card than a gtx275 anyway. in other words a gtx285 with 1024mb would still be faster than a gtx275 with 1796mb of ram.

 

[nitromullet]

....means more future proof. ... Buying a 2gb HD4850 makes more sense...

No. Just no. The easiest way to tell if someone is giving bad advice is when you see them:

- say something is future proof when talking about video cards
- recommend one last generation card over another.

The correct answers to someone considering a GTX 275 are:

- HD 5850 over GTX 275
- wait for Fermi, then decide
- If you really have to get one, buy a GTX 275 on ebay. Don't worry about the memory amount because the 896MB is enough for the gpu's capabilities, unless you consider high resolution on lower settings future proofing.

I speak from experience... I just sold a GTX 275 on ebay, and I know what this card is capable of. I've also owned a 4850, and while it was a great card in its day, I wouldn't recommend one anymore as someone's primary gaming card unless they are really on a tight budget.

 

[Seero]

No. Just no. The easiest way to tell if someone is giving bad advice is when you see them:

- say something is future proof when talking about video cards
- recommend one last generation card over another.

The correct answers to someone considering a GTX 275 are:

- HD 5850 over GTX 275
- wait for Fermi, then decide
- If you really have to get one, buy a GTX 275 on ebay. Don't worry about the memory amount because the 896MB is enough for the gpu's capabilities, unless you consider high resolution on lower settings future proofing.

I speak from experience... I just sold a GTX 275 on ebay, and I know what this card is capable of. I've also owned a 4850, and while it was a great card in its day, I wouldn't recommend one anymore as someone's primary gaming card unless they are really on a tight budget.

I meant 5870, sorry.

 

[Seero]

what are you rambling about? I was making a point that having that much on the gtx275 will not result in any more performance. besides GTA 4 the card itself is NOT strong enough to run any games at settings that would end up needing more than 896mb. at 2560x1600 and 8x or 16x AA you are going to want a faster card than a gtx275 anyway. in other words a gtx285 with 1024mb would still be faster than a gtx275 with 1796mb of ram.

I simply point out facts, and things that are not correct. Just like the poster above corrected me.

You keep saying "except GTA4", why is GTA4 so special? Will there be games that uses VRAM like GTA4? Was it because it uses 32xAA? or was the minimum resolution 2560x1600?

Video card itself is like a PC. Can a C2D utilize 120Gb of RAM? AA is one of the ways to fill up those VRAM, but isn't the only way. PhysX is a good example of why VRAM is important even without high resolution.

 

[mfenn]

The real problem of using more memory isn't the hardware, but the software. Many people are still using 32-bit windows and 32-bit program has a softcap at 2gb (lots of PC setup will fail at that usage already), and a hard cap at 4gb (which will not run on 32-bit setup). It isn't far from 64bit apps to come in, and by then, 16gb RAM isn't too much anymore. If engineers can figure out a way to create multiple 32-bit threads, then it may be possible for a 32 bit apps to use more than 2gb, allowing it to produce enrich graphics and utilizing multi-cores. We really should have said bye bye to 32 bit OS and said hello to 64 bit OS 2 years ago..

Please do not comment on OS memory-mapping techniques in the future, as you clearly have no clue WTF you are talking about.

"Softcap at 2GB"? I'm assuming that you're referring to 32-bit Windows' 2GB/2GB split between user address space and kernel address space. This is a hard limit on what an individual process can allocate.

"Hard cap at 4gb (which will not run on 32-bit setup)"?? What are you smoking? Of course you can put more than 4GB in a system that is running a 32-bit OS. The OS simple will not be able to address memory over the 4GB mark. The "usable" memory will in fact be even less since hardware needs dedicated address ranges for memory-mapped I/O (the GPU's is one such device).

Multiple 32-bit threads utilizing different address spaces? All threads of a process share the same address spaces. This is fundamental to the way threads work.

Of course, anybody who knows how the x86 architecture actually works didn't need me to post this. However, people who don't know how it works might repeat your hogwash and look like fools themselves.

 

[mfenn]

I simply point out facts, and things that are not correct. Just like the poster above corrected me.

You keep saying "except GTA4", why is GTA4 so special? Will there be games that uses VRAM like GTA4? Was it because it uses 32xAA? or was the minimum resolution 2560x1600?

Video card itself is like a PC. Can a C2D utilize 120Gb of RAM? AA is one of the ways to fill up those VRAM, but isn't the only way. PhysX is a good example of why VRAM is important even without high resolution.

You stated yourself that video game developers must target the majority of users with their games! Most people DO NOT have cards with 1GB+ of VRAM, so the games base requirements (no AA) will most likely fit in 512MB or so of VRAM. AA does require more VRAM, but is OPTIONAL and certainly not a good reason to buy an overpriced last-gen card.

 

[Seero]

Please do not comment on OS memory-mapping techniques in the future, as you clearly have no clue WTF you are talking about.

"Softcap at 2GB"? I'm assuming that you're referring to 32-bit Windows' 2GB/2GB split between user address space and kernel address space. This is a hard limit on what an individual process can allocate.

"Hard cap at 4gb (which will not run on 32-bit setup)"?? What are you smoking? Of course you can put more than 4GB in a system that is running a 32-bit OS. The OS simple will not be able to address memory over the 4GB mark. The "usable" memory will in fact be even less since hardware needs dedicated address ranges for memory-mapped I/O (the GPU's is one such device).

Multiple 32-bit threads utilizing different address spaces? All threads of a process share the same address spaces. This is fundamental to the way threads work.

I am not confused, but I think you are.

If a 32bit apps is not compiled with /largeaddressaware, then it can't use more than 2 gb of memory, which is known as the soft cap. 32 bit application can exceed 4Gb of memory usage even with /largeaddressaware due to the 32 bit limitation. The 4gb limitation is aka the hard cap. No 32bit apps can use 4 gb in a 32bit OS because the OS must reserve some for kernel, 3gb at max. A 32bit app that is compiled with /largeaddressaware can fully use 4gb under 64bit OS.

64 bit OS can run 32 bit apps, but not the other way around. It will be better to write apps that run on both 32/64bit OS as the market is a mix of 32/64bit OS. So instead of creating 64 bit apps, which does not run on 32 bit OS, it is better to write them in 32 bit. The problem is, 32 bit apps don't utilize more than 4gb, which is the key to the problem. Hypothetically speaking, If apps are engineered correctly, it can run as 1 32 bit thread on 32 bit OS and as multiple 32 bit threads while in 64 bit OS.

Of course, anybody who knows how the x86 architecture actually works didn't need me to post this. However, people who don't know how it works might repeat your hogwash and look like fools themselves.