9800pro 128 v. 256?

[Fern]

I think I'll be able to upgrade to a 9800pro soon.

However, recently I have read that 256 is required for best textures. In the recent past most have said 256 is overkill. Has that changed?

 

[Matthias99]

There are a handful of games (such as Call of Duty) where you can use higher-resolution textures on a 256MB video card. Even so, I would suggest not paying the premium for it right now, unless you have money to burn. 99% of the time it makes no effective difference in visual quality, and only a very small (if any) difference in speed.

 

[modedepe]

Personally, I wouldn't spend an extra $100. I'd save it for a later upgrade when 256mb becomes more necessary.

*waits for VIAN to chime in about the absolute necessity of 256mb*

 

[EarthwormJim]

It's getting to the point where it's not a hell of a lot more money for a 256mb card. Newegg has 256mb 9800pro's for only $320, and it's a full retail card. From another post on hardforum and looking at the pictures, it also looks like that particular card is an underclocked 9800xt. If I were you though and whilling to spend $300+ on a video card, I'd wait for the next cards to come out and see how they do.

 

[VIAN]

256MB is an absolute necessity. That's right, see. 🙂

Depends on how long you intend to keep your card. Give it one year and 256MB should be a requirement.

 

[nick1985]

crap, vian already got to this thread. i was going to say "if VIAN posts here, dont listen" 🙂

(see sig)


BTW, 256 = worthless and deffinately not worth the money. by the time 256 is more common for games, the clock speeds and architecture of the 9800pro will be severely lacking.

 

[Axon]

You must have 256 MB to play Quake 3.

 

[Matthias99]

Gah! Stupid double post.

 

[Matthias99]

BTW, 256 = worthless and deffinately not worth the money. by the time 256 is more common for games, the clock speeds and architecture of the 9800pro will be severely lacking.

I think it's fairer to say that by the time 256MB is *required* by any games, the card will be obsolete. I suspect that both HL2 and Doom3 (and other games of their level, performance-wise) will be able to make *some* use of the extra memory, but probably not enough to justify the $100 (ie, almost 50%) markup.

Depends on how long you intend to keep your card. Give it one year and 256MB should be a requirement.

Mainstream games will NOT require 256MB of video RAM in one year. Maybe in two years or more. Games *today* still have to consider the large proportion of users with 64 or 32MB cards of the GF2 era, and that won't change overnight. Buying a card today with less than 128MB may be asking for trouble relatively soon (at least if you intend to play anything cutting edge), but 256MB is going to take a long while yet to become mainstream.

 

[SneakyStuff]

VIAN will believe anything he reads, but until he actually DOES what he says, that means JACK. 256 mb is going to be the pci-express standard, not the agp standard, a 128 mb agp card, provided the GPU is good, will hold you over until your next upgrade, no problems. A good card means more than just raw performance, value and cost effectiveness play a LARGE roll. And that is what the pci-e boards are promising. And I totally agree with matthias, you can't expect the industry to change overnight, not everyone is going to go out and buy a 256 mb card DUH.

 

[VIAN]

My audience is not the mainstream that buys a card every 3-4 years. In COD textures that fit 64MB look like crap, just like the textures in MOH. If I were to buy a card and especially if I were to go into the long run of 3-4 years 256MB would surely be a help if you care somewhat about IQ.

revision:
Depends on how long you intend to keep your card. Give it one year and 256MB should be a recommended for best experience in most games. Just like today 128MB is recommended for best experience.

This is what I meant. Obviously not required. COD only needs a 32 MB card to run.

128MB card is fine for me because I know that I'm going to upgrade next year. I was taking into consideration those that don't upgrade for a while like 2+ years.

Should have said something like that before.

Although I have already stated in another thread that my arguement has lost. But not worthless.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
There are a handful of games (such as Call of Duty) where you can use higher-resolution textures on a 256MB video card. Even so, I would suggest not paying the premium for it right now, unless you have money to burn. 99% of the time it makes no effective difference in visual quality, and only a very small (if any) difference in speed.

IAWTP

it only improves performance on a couple games right now at the highest resolutions when running aa/af. even at 1280x1024 in CoD using the large texutres provided in the "extra" settings, there is an insignificant performance difference between a 128mb and 256mb card. at 1600x1200, the 256mb card is about 10% faster.

so if you only play CoD, will only play it at 1600 with af/aa (tho who need aa at 1600?), and you consider each 1% increase is framerate costing about $10 a good value, then the 256mb card is for you 🙂

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Matthias99
There are a handful of games (such as Call of Duty) where you can use higher-resolution textures on a 256MB video card. Even so, I would suggest not paying the premium for it right now, unless you have money to burn. 99% of the time it makes no effective difference in visual quality, and only a very small (if any) difference in speed.

IAWTP

it only improves performance on a couple games right now at the highest resolutions when running aa/af. even at 1280x1024 in CoD using the large texutres provided in the "extra" settings, there is an insignificant performance difference between a 128mb and 256mb card. at 1600x1200, the 256mb card is about 10% faster.

so if you only play CoD, will only play it at 1600 with af/aa (tho who need aa at 1600?), and you consider each 1% increase is framerate costing about $10 a good value, then the 256mb card is for you 🙂

VIAN is partially right, actually in UT2k3 and CoD the improvment is at least 50% with 4AA/8AF at 1600x1200 dont kid yourself not 1-10% everyone is talking about.

CoD 1600x1200 4AA/8AF Improvment of 61%
UT2k3 1600x1200 4AA/no AF improvement of 21% with 4AA/8AF its gonna be 50%
So consider 1600x1200 4AA/8AF in HL2, Far Cry, Doom 3, it WILL DEFINATELY CONTRIBUTE AT 1600X1200.

but it still doesnt make $100 increase justifiable in my eyes, esp considering in 4 months this $300 card will cost $150.
Also in 1-2 years from now you probably will not be able to play any new game at these high quality settings regardless of ram; like everyone else says obsolescence will set in. that is something to consider and it's for you to decide whether playing 2-5 games at the highest settings is worth $100 today.

I say take $100 bucks and buy a Raptor WD and you'll notice faster loading times in games, thats a real world difference you will be able to feel. There's always a thought of putting it towards your next big upgrade.

 

[SneakyStuff]

w/e, i'm too poor to care. I'll just wait until they release a 512mb card......

 

[BFG10K]

There's a difference in some of today's games but it's probably not worth the price premium. OTOH if you plan on sticking with the card for at least a year then it might be worth it.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Matthias99
There are a handful of games (such as Call of Duty) where you can use higher-resolution textures on a 256MB video card. Even so, I would suggest not paying the premium for it right now, unless you have money to burn. 99% of the time it makes no effective difference in visual quality, and only a very small (if any) difference in speed.

IAWTP

it only improves performance on a couple games right now at the highest resolutions when running aa/af. even at 1280x1024 in CoD using the large texutres provided in the "extra" settings, there is an insignificant performance difference between a 128mb and 256mb card. at 1600x1200, the 256mb card is about 10% faster.

so if you only play CoD, will only play it at 1600 with af/aa (tho who need aa at 1600?), and you consider each 1% increase is framerate costing about $10 a good value, then the 256mb card is for you 🙂

VIAN is partially right, actually in UT2k3 and CoD the improvment is at least 50% with 4AA/8AF at 1600x1200 dont kid yourself not 1-10% everyone is talking about.

CoD 1600x1200 4AA/8AF Improvment of 61%

well, you're comparing an 256mb xt with a 128mb pro.

an accurate comparison would be comaparing a 128mb 9800pro w/ a 256mb version, but i stand corrected; in CoD at that res it makes more of a difference than I stated, although I still question whether it's worth it, as at 1280 they are virtually identical.

[/quote]

UT2k3 1600x1200 4AA/no AF improvement of 21% with 4AA/8AF its gonna be 50%

So consider 1600x1200 4AA/8AF in HL2, Far Cry, Doom 3, it WILL DEFINATELY CONTRIBUTE AT 1600X1200.
[/quote]

those are still assumptions based on incomplete data.

but it still doesnt make $100 increase justifiable in my eyes, esp considering in 4 months this $300 card will cost $150.
Also in 1-2 years from now you probably will not be able to play any new game at these high quality settings regardless of ram; like everyone else says obsolescence will set in. that is something to consider and it's for you to decide whether playing 2-5 games at the highest settings is worth $100 today.

agreed

I say take $100 bucks and buy a Raptor WD and you'll notice faster loading times in games, thats a real world difference you will be able to feel. There's always a thought of putting it towards your next big upgrade.

i'm waiting till the capcities increase a bit more 🙂