512MB 5770 vs. 1GB 5750?

[pm]

wow you actually bought an 8800gt 256mb? that had to be one of the silliest cards ever made especially for playing games above 1280. the 8800gt was such a great card and to gimp it with only 256mb was just ridiculous. I still remember some guy complaining about his performance with his 8800gt 256mb sli set up. lol

As I recall, I paid close to 40% less for the 256MB version instead of the 512MB version. I'm not a major gamer and 30% off is a lot of money. An 8800GT was roughly $180-200, and I remember that I paid well under $150.. usually my target is under $125... but I don't remember.

I haven't played any of the games listed - I'm playing Bioshock right now (graphics set to mid-range). About the only reason that I'm thinking about upgrading now is Bioshock 2... if I'm toning down the graphics enough on the original Bioshock... I think I need an improvement to be happy with Bioshock 2.

Back when I bought 8800GT I could look at the video card chart and I saw that I lost about 10% performance for about 30% lower price and I went for it. The problem that I have now is I don't know what kind of performance I'm looking at for the drop from 1GB to 512MB because no one has reviewed the 512MB.

You can say that the 256MB version was silly - if I gamed a lot, I'd probably agree. But for a guy who generally games only a bit, and generally plays older games, it made sense to me and I've never regretted it. Aside from Bioshock, I'm playing Warhammer Online right now. It's a mathematical thing - it chopped 12% off of my 3DMark scores... it wasn't like it was a ridiculous loss.

As far as $20 more... I don't do rebates, so I'm looking at ~$130 vs. ~$170, so it's $40 more... or about 33% more.

Maybe you guys are right... maybe I should just wait. But I know I'll have no problem spending ~$60 on a card ($130 - $70), but spending $100 ($170 - $70) seems like a lot... and I'd like to buy the card before Bioshock 2 releases so that I can use the gift copy that a friend gifted me on Steam.

 

[toyota]

well the 8800gt would still be a fairly good card today IF it was a 512mb model. an 8800gt itself is still fine but having just 256mb makes most modern games above 1280 completely unplayable. even back when the 8800gt 256mb came out there were some games that were almost unplayable without turning down the settings and res quite a bit while the 8800gt 512mb wasnt even breaking a sweat. that was a very short lived card for sure and for many people it bit them in the ass with just 256mb.

at 1920 you will be much better off with a 5770 1gb or something like a 5830 even. games are just too demanding at that res especially if you turn up the eye candy. sure the 5770 512mb will play most games just fine but paying 20 more bucks gets you so much more like was mentioned earlier.

 

[MarcVenice]

First of all, videocards 101: More ram does NOT equal faster. There are cases where a videocard runs out of vram, and it has to swap between the regular ram, which takes AGES compared to how fast it can acces it's own dedicated memory. When that happens, you will notice a slowdown, when it happens often, the game will feel like shit.

How often does it happen? I have not tested a HD 5770 512MB, but I have tested both a HD 5670 512MB and a HD 5670 1GB. In FC2, at 1680x1050, ultra high, 4xAA, 16xAF, there is NO difference between those two cards. Without AA, there is also no difference in Batman (ut 3.0 engine), HAWX and DiRT2. So I suppose at 1680x1050 with 4xAA it doesn't happen very often if it all.

Also, Bioshock 2 uses the UT 3.0-engine, just like Bioshock 1. It won't be MUCH more graphically intensive. A 5770 512MB is going to run it at it's highest settings without any problems. At 1920x1080 you might have to decrease 4xAA to 2xAA or run without any AA at all.

 

[toyota]

First of all, videocards 101: More ram does NOT equal faster. There are cases where a videocard runs out of vram, and it has to swap between the regular ram, which takes AGES compared to how fast it can acces it's own dedicated memory. When that happens, you will notice a slowdown, when it happens often, the game will feel like shit.

How often does it happen? I have not tested a HD 5770 512MB, but I have tested both a HD 5670 512MB and a HD 5670 1GB. In FC2, at 1680x1050, ultra high, 4xAA, 16xAF, there is NO difference between those two cards. Without AA, there is also no difference in Batman (ut 3.0 engine), HAWX and DiRT2. So I suppose at 1680x1050 with 4xAA it doesn't happen very often if it all.

Also, Bioshock 2 uses the UT 3.0-engine, just like Bioshock 1. It won't be MUCH more graphically intensive. A 5770 512MB is going to run it at it's highest settings without any problems. At 1920x1080 you might have to decrease 4xAA to 2xAA or run without any AA at all.

with those settings in Far Cry 2 you would be around 700mb or more of vram usage so how could it possibly be just as smooth with the 512mb card? the 5670 must be too slow to give a decent framerate with either 1gb or 512mb then because there would certainly be a difference if it was a faster card that was actually getting it vram cut in half.

in fact look how the 4870 512mb falls apart compared to the 1gb model with just 2x AA at 1680. with 4x AA the 4870 512mb gets HALF the min framerate as the 4870 1gb.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2008/11/28/gigabyte-gv-r485mc-1gh-radeon-hd-4850-1gb/3

btw Bioshock actually uses a modified UE 2.5 engine. a lot of people get that confused.

 

[MarcVenice]

with those settings in Far Cry 2 you would be around 700mb or more of vram usage so how could it possibly be just as smooth with the 512mb card? in fact look how the 4870 512mb falls apart compared to the 1gb model with just 2x AA at 1680. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2008/11/28/gigabyte-gv-r485mc-1gh-radeon-hd-4850-1gb/3

btw Bioshock actually uses a modified UE 2.5 engine. a lot of people get that confused.

Thanks.

Well, I don't know? Maybe the 5000-serie takes less of a hit when it comes to AA? I tested it, see: http://tweakers.net/reviews/1530/5/hd-5670-budget-gamekaart-of-veredelde-htpc-kaart-far-cry-2.html

The diference is roughly 1 fps at best. Second explanation could be that the HD 5670 has such little processing power, that the extra ram doesn't matter, because the gpu can't fill it up fast enough. I think that's unlikely though.

Oh and it seems gpu-z can't measure vram usage on my HD 5870, so I can't test it right now ...

 

[toyota]

Thanks.

Well, I don't know? Maybe the 5000-serie takes less of a hit when it comes to AA? I tested it, see: http://tweakers.net/reviews/1530/5/hd-5670-budget-gamekaart-of-veredelde-htpc-kaart-far-cry-2.html

The diference is roughly 1 fps at best. Second explanation could be that the HD 5670 has such little processing power, that the extra ram doesn't matter, because the gpu can't fill it up fast enough. I think that's unlikely though.

Oh and it seems gpu-z can't measure vram usage on my HD 5870, so I can't test it right now ...

yeah I think you have just pushed the card to its limits with those settings so it isnt able to do anything else with more vram. just like in that review the 4850 512mb and 1gb models doesnt have as big of a discrepancy as the 4870 512mb and 1gb models do.

 

[MarcVenice]

But to conclude, if money is tight, I think the 512MB-model is going to do pretty well. I mean, it's still 512MB, not 256MB, which I would agree is a total dealbreaker. Also, Bioshock 2 isn't out yet, you could wait till it's out and benchmarked (try it on your old videocard). By then prices might have lowered a bit ( I know for a fact something new is coming around the time BioShock 2 launches ).

 

[toyota]

I just checked and even the first Bioshock uses 577mb with 4x AA at 1920x1080. with no AA it was 462mb. I was really surprised that it actually used that much vram. Bioshock 2 will likely be a little more demanding but of course no one knows yet.

 

[Alienwho]

On the subject of 512MB vs 1GB, I currently have a 512MB 4870. I was planning on putting in another 512MB 4870 and do crossfire. Would that essentially give me the benefit of a 1GB card or not? What would happen if I got a 1GB 4870 and did crossfire, would it automatically downgrade it to 512MB or what?

 

[toyota]

On the subject of 512MB vs 1GB, I currently have a 512MB 4870. I was planning on putting in another 512MB 4870 and do crossfire. Would that essentially give me the benefit of a 1GB card or not? What would happen if I got a 1GB 4870 and did crossfire, would it automatically downgrade it to 512MB or what?

adding another 4870 whether its a 512mb or 1gb will still only give you the same 512mb of usable vram that you already have.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I personally have a 4850 512MB @stock running @ 19x10 and PERSONALLY I have little to no problems with it. Granted, I tend to play stuff like Company of Heroes, Dawn of War 2, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Stalker, The Witcher (maybe not the most cutting edge stuff) and I consistently get 30+ FPS and usually closer to 60 than not. Bandwidth and general core speed is holding me back much more than the amount of ram that I have.

At 1920x1080, AA isn't nearly as important as it is at lower resolutions, AF is largely free one way or the other (I always run 16x if its an option). Games like Crysis & GTA 4 aren't going to run well on your computer no matter WHAT you buy @ the sub-$200 mark.

If given the choice, I would go with the 5770 512mb given your gaming habits, wants and needs.

 

[pm]

Ok. I'm convinced. I'll buy the 1GB 5770. You are right. I keep these things long enough and I can afford it.

Thanks very much for all of the comments and analysis. It's been insightful.

 

[alyarb]

do you have a crossfire capable board, or just SLI? a pair of 5770s is no joke and the idle power is rock bottom

 

[toyota]

Ok. I'm convinced. I'll buy the 1GB 5770. You are right. I keep these things long enough and I can afford it.

Thanks very much for all of the comments and analysis. It's been insightful.

smart move. you will be using it long enough that 20 extra bucks wont even matter after you start playing games. you will also not have to worry about second guessing if 512mb was enough especially if you decide to get another one for crossfire at a later time.

 

[pm]

Yeah, my board supports CF and SLI both. I've never thought about CF/SLI before, but the power and performance numbers on the 5770 are compelling.

I'm going to get a 1GB 5770 - or at least I'm not going to buy the 512MB version.

And I think MarkVenice is right, I'll wait and see how it looks, and I'll see if there's going to be another one of these $144 Newegg 5770 deals between now and then too.

smart move. you will be using it long enough that 20 extra bucks wont even matter after you start playing games. you will also not have to worry about second guessing if 512mb was enough especially if you decide to get another one for crossfire at a later time.

Thank you for your advice all through the thread.

 

[crisium]

This is why it's a shame there's no 768MB cards anymore. Besides GTA, you almost never see more than 768MB usage. I'm sure there are a few 8800GTX / Ultra people out there still. You can pull up Toms and compare GTS 250 512 and 1GB to an Ultra and the Ultra doesn't falter at high res like the 512mb 250 does. Truly cards for the ages, them G80s.

 

[Arkaign]

This is why it's a shame there's no 768MB cards anymore. Besides GTA, you almost never see more than 768MB usage. I'm sure there are a few 8800GTX / Ultra people out there still. You can pull up Toms and compare GTS 250 512 and 1GB to an Ultra and the Ultra doesn't falter at high res like the 512mb 250 does. Truly cards for the ages, them G80s.

IIRC, 2560x1600 really needs 1GB in a lot of situations, but I really doubt there's too many people that buy a 30" screen and then get a 512mb video card

G80 is legendary, along with the Radeon 9700 and the 4200ti, just for being amazing cards that you could use for a good couple/three years from launch and still play just fine. 8800GTX and Ultra launched in '06, and you can STILL run most new games just fine at 1680x1050 with pretty high details/options.

Before that, I think you really have to go back to Voodoo1 and Voodoo2 for really long-lived video cards.

Voodoo1 was launched in 1996 and could play games easily until '99-'00, albeit at fairly low resolutions. Voodoo2 launched in 1998 and I remember playing Quake3 on a Voodoo2 SLI setup just dandy at 1024x768 (a common res back then, when a nice 17" CRT was still a couple hundred bucks or more).