8800 gts 320 vs 640

[mrfatboy]

I have read that the 8800 gts 320 is fine for current games at 1280 x 1024 (my current monitor). However, I am worried if the 320mb will be enough for the upcoming game Crysis. Will 320mb be big enough. I will still be in 1280x1024 res.

 

[Chadder007]

Still too soon to tell, but there are definitely games that do take advantage of more Video RAM than that already.

 

[manimal]

Its a safe bet that Crysis will use alot of memory at higher resolutions, whats not safe to assume is that cards with 640 and even 768 will be be fast enough and have enough memory bandwith to play at the maximum settings. Much like when BF2 came out or even when Far Cry came out few if any could play with all the candy turned up. Only time will tell.

 

[mrfatboy]

i guess i am more worried about texture memory 320 vs 640. I'm sure the cards will have speed issues. I just don't want to get stuck like I did with BF2 with only 128m instead of 256m

 

[Ryland]

I would get the 640MB if you can afford it. Games are just going to keep using/wanting more memory.

 

[SickBeast]

It's really hard to say. Crysis is DX10, so potentially the 320mb 8800GTS can use your system memory to help alleviate the bottleneck.

The card is a shading powerhouse, which IMO is what Crysis will need more than anything. I'm certain there will be a way to tweak the settings to make the game run fast on the 320mb card; probably if you turn down the texture detail a bit the game will fly.

 

[Fraggable]

It will be fine, but if you can afford the small price difference go ahead and get the 640MB.

I run a 320MB at 1920 X 1080 on a 37" Westinghouse 1080P display, and it runs BF2 at max detail, 2X AA at above 60 FPS. AA is the thing that kills the 320MB version at high resolutions. If you have a high resolution display, then AA may not even be needed.

No one knows about Crysis yet, other than that one developer's remark about his X1900 running it fine.

 

[mrfatboy]

If I can get away with the 320 that would be best. I'm only going to be in 1280x1024 res anyway. Like I said before, texture memory is what I'm worried most about. If that card can't handle crysis because of speed I will have to upgrade anyway and THEN I would get more texture mem.

 

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: mrfatboy
If I can get away with the 320 that would be best. I'm only going to be in 1280x1024 res anyway. Like I said before, texture memory is what I'm worried most about. If that card can't handle crysis because of speed I will have to upgrade anyway and THEN I would get more texture mem.

Even Crysis I can't possibly imagine having a problem with 320MB of memory at that low resolution. I'm planning to use my 320MB at 1080P with Crysis, I know I'll have to turn some things down and probably won't get any AA but it won't be bad. I play Far Cry with no AA now and it looks just beautiful.

Keep in mind that Crysis will be one of the first designed for DX10 from the ground up and will most likely run much better on the 8800's than we think. At least that's what I think.

 

[mrfatboy]

Are the FarCry Max specs 256m? Again, I'm worried that Crysis will set a new standard at 512m. If the set the new standard at 320 which seems reasonable then no problem.

 

[JustaGeek]

I would not buy a Video Card today with less than 512MB VRAM.

Even with my 7950GT I play Far Cry with all the max settings, and the Quake 4 in Ultra Settings. The graphics are just incredible at 1680x1050.

I a few months you might want to upgrade your monitor, and you will have to get a new VC in order to play games at higher resolutions.

It's not worth the risk - go with 640MB.

 

[mrfatboy]

good point! I think you might have swayed me to get the 640 version.

 

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: mrfatboy
Are the FarCry Max specs 256m? Again, I'm worried that Crysis will set a new standard at 512m. If the set the new standard at 320 which seems reasonable then no problem.

There won't be a new 'standard', no game sets a new 'standard'. It may require more memory to play with higher textures, but there's no way the minimum requirements for Crysis would be more than 256MB. I'm betting it will be minimum 128MB.

320MB will no doubt RUN the game at a resolution of 2650 X 1600, but it would be at low texture settings. At 1920 X 1080, maybe at medium. My point is that it will RUN the game, just not at the highest texture settings. At your 1280 X 1024, I cannot believe that you will need more than 256 to play at highest resolutions. The thing to consider is whether you're going to upgrade your monitor or not.

more video memory = higher textures at higher resolutions
more GPU speed = more effects and smoother frames

 

[imported_Equinox]

At 1280x1024, if you aren't going to use much AA the 8600GTS overclocked a bit should be okay with most games. My monitor is 1680x1050, and I own a Geforce 8800GTS 640. It plays everything I've thrown at it well. Will it be enough for Crysis? I don't know, since it isn't final or out yet. I have to agree with other posters, though, that it is doubtful that the developers of the game are going to have system requirements so high that only the minority of system owners (those with high-end cards) are able to play it. That doesn't make very good business sense. Take a look at the Valve survey - the VAST majority of users polled there have much less than 8800's and 2900XTs (I couldn't even find a figure for 2900XTs except under Vista OS boxes). To be honest, I'm shocked only around 23% have 2GBs of RAM or more, and only around 25% have dual core or more processors. In the scheme of things, that indicates to me that there are a lot of gamers out there playing games fairly low end boxes, and enjoying themselves.

 

[JustaGeek]

There is always a way to make even the most demanding game work. If you lower the settings enough, anything on the market today can be made playable.

But... don't you love all that "eye candy"?

Even on my 7950GT with 512MB VRAM, Quake 4 at Ultra Quality settings on the 1680x1050 22" Monitor looks absolutely amazing! And you cannot do Ultra with only 256MB...

And that's the point of all the progress in the GPU development. Spending ~$300, for ~$50 to ~$100 more, wouldn't you want to buy the assurance of these higher settings...?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814130071

 

[mrfatboy]

I don't want minimum specs for Crysis and I don't need to be on the bleeding edge. I want some some room to grow though. At 1280x1024 res, does 320 give me that breathing room or am I buying into the bottom end?


i guess we will have to wait and see. It's only a 50/50 chance that I will make a $100 mistake

 

[JustaGeek]

Either way, you won't make a mistake.

You shouldn't think in terms of should've/could've once you make your decicion, though.

That's why, IMHO, you should go with the 640MB version - not to have to think "what if". It all depends on your budget, of course.

Honestly - I don't see the breathing room in 320 - but it's just my personal opinion.

 

[mrfatboy]

i don't mind spending the extra money if I'm going to use the 640 but if I barely put a dent in the 320 (memory usage wise) the 640 would be a waste.

 

[JustaGeek]

It is entirely up to you, and as you can see here, the opinions are divided.

IMHO, there is no such think as waste of memory, especially VRAM, if you want the "breathing room" - unless you get 4GB of RAM for a 32-bit OS. Then it is a waste.

 

[mrfatboy]

Correct me if I'm wrong here,

1280 x1024 x 32bit = 41,943,040 = 41meg per video page

41meg x 3 (assume video game triple bufffer) = 123meg

so,

320 meg total ram - 123meg (game buffer) =197 megs for texture memory!

or

640 meg total ram - 123meg (game buffers) = 517 megs for texture memory!


so if 197megs gets me medium or better graphics than 320 meg is fine. IF 197meg is low end for games in the future than I should get the 640.


Did I leave anything out? I sure we can beat this horse some more

 

[imported_Equinox]

Consider, too, how cheap 22 inch monitors @ 1680x1050 have gotten. You can have one easily for less than the cost of either video card - good ones can be had for $250. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that you might get a new monitor. In fact, personally I'd rather have a mediocre video card and a great monitor than the other way around, but that's just me.

 

[JustaGeek]

Honestly - your math beats me, I simply do not know if that's the way you calculate the required texture memory.

All the numbers I have ever considered were, when going from 1280x1024 = 1,310,720 pixels to 1680x1050 = 1,764,000, meaning 1.35x more pixels to process.

My 3DMark06 1280x1024 is ~5900, with 1680x1050 is ~5200.

I have no way of checking how much VRAM is being used at the moment, but as I said, Quake 4 will not let you pick Ultra Quality settings with less than 512 VRAM. And I can only imagine that Crysis will be more than happy to place those uncompressed textures in the VRAM, instead of keeping them in RAM or Virtual memory on the Hard Drive only to decompress them when needed.

That's what causes "jerkiness" and "staggering" during games.

BTW, playing Quake 4 in Ultra Quality would cause my RAM to max-out in some scenes - 99% memory use reported by Logitech G15, 2GB upper RAM barrier for applications in 32-bit OS'. It shows ~65% now with 3GB installed, but the performance improved.

 

[mrfatboy]

Yes, a good point. If I upgraded to a 1680x1050 monitor, an additional 47meg comes out of the Vram (triple video buffers).

Which leaves me 150megs for textures for a 320 card 470 megs for a 640m card.


so, 150megs is looking mighty tiny now! So i think the 640meg card is the best bet for the additional texture memory and potential monitor updgrade.


Whew, crazy analyis but effective.

 

[imported_Equinox]

Good choice Regret over buying too little is much worse than the little bit of initial pain you might feel in spending more. $60-70 bucks for 320 more megs of VRAM is actually a pretty awesome deal.

 

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: mrfatboy

Yes, a good point. If I upgraded to a 1680x1050 monitor, an additional 47meg comes out of the Vram (triple video buffers).

Which leaves me 150megs for textures for a 320 card 470 megs for a 640m card.


so, 150megs is looking mighty tiny now! So i think the 640meg card is the best bet for the additional texture memory and potential monitor updgrade.


Whew, crazy analyis but effective.

You cannot just calculate how much video memory is used by pulling numbers out of the air. Every game has different size textures and requires more or less memory to show them. IE, Quake 4 requires 512MB for its highest setting, while BF1942 requires about 128MB.

You'd be better off searching for that thread I saw here where a guy tested his video memory usage at different settings in different games.

Found it: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...&keyword1=memory+usage