A friend of mine thinks that getting a 6800 Ultra 512 would be better than a BFG 7800 GTX..

[DfiDude]

Whats really the difference between the 512mb and 256 mb. He says that it will take off stress for textures or something. I know it doesnt help that much and its not worth it. What does the 512MB actually do?

 

[Schadenfroh]

512mb might come in handy if he is using max everything at some insane resolution in a vast game like Everquest2 and Battlefield 2.

 

[vinayb]

completely useless... see the benchmarks...

 

[the splat in the hat]

wasting his cash with the 512 meg one go for the extra pixle pipes / ie 24 of em will do more than 128 megs extra ram.
7800 all the way ......

 

[the splat in the hat]

onboard ram is for textures.

 

[knyghtbyte]

would need to be running a 30in display or higher with appropriate resolution based on conventional pitch/pixel size (ie a monitor, NOT a TV, most 30in TV's are still only running 1280x720 ressie, they just have a higher pixel/pitch size) for it to show an advantage over a 256Mb 7800......even then the advantage wouldnt be much.....

 

[McArra]

Your friend knows nothing about comps

 

[StrangerGuy]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
512mb might come in handy if he is using max everything at some insane resolution in a vast game like Everquest2 and Battlefield 2.

At single-digit frame rates? lol

 

[Gamingphreek]

Even at those high resolutions the 6800 isn't fast enough to push the card. You cant compare a 512mb last 6800 to the 7800GTX. They are 2 different generations. The 512mb will do nothing. I dont know how to calculate it but i dont think 512mb will make much of a difference running at the Apples native resolution. I think 256 is still enough (Barely).

Also you have to remember that while at normal resolutions the 6800 is fine, once you go over 16x12 it takes a huge performance hit. Nvidia claimed that their cards were optimized up to 16x12. ATI cards dont seem to have this problem, nor do the 7800's.

-Kevin

 

[rbV5]

I dont know how to calculate it but i dont think 512mb will make much of a difference running at the Apples native resolution. I think 256 is still enough (Barely).

It'll make no difference at all. Vram is a minor concern, the resolution any card can output is limited by the RAMDAC speed and driver support for analog, and for digital, its dependant on the TMDS transmitter, you'll need a dual link TMDS to drive a digital panel past 1920x1080 (1900x1200 with reduced frequency)

So Lets see what it really takes:

Apple Cinema 30" display @ 2560 x 1600 @ 24-bit true color (16.7 million colors)

Math is: H * V * (bit depth / 8)

2560 x 1600 = 4,096,000 x 3 = 12,288,000 bits or ~12MB vram required.

 

[Kogan]

Ha, it looks like there's a market out there for geforce 5's with 1gb of ram. Maybe your friend would pay $400 for one of those

 

[imported_Kensai]

Oh! Chaintech made a 6200 with 512MB of ram...

 

[the splat in the hat]

Originally posted by: Kogan
Ha, it looks like there's a market out there for geforce 5's with 1gb of ram. Maybe your friend would pay $400 for one of those

hahahaha f@%&ken ay.....

 

[knyghtbyte]

Originally posted by: rbV5

I dont know how to calculate it but i dont think 512mb will make much of a difference running at the Apples native resolution. I think 256 is still enough (Barely).

It'll make no difference at all. Vram is a minor concern, the resolution any card can output is limited by the RAMDAC speed and driver support for analog, and for digital, its dependant on the TMDS transmitter, you'll need a dual link TMDS to drive a digital panel past 1920x1080 (1900x1200 with reduced frequency)

So Lets see what it really takes:

Apple Cinema 30" display @ 2560 x 1600 @ 24-bit true color (16.7 million colors)

Math is: H * V * (bit depth / 8)

2560 x 1600 = 4,096,000 x 3 = 12,288,000 bits or ~12MB vram required.

for watching a DVD i guess that math would make sense......

for 3d games tho, when you look at benchmarks, you get two identical chip cards but one with say 128mb ram and the other with 256mb ram, the higher ram one WILL score more benchies or fps in games at higher resolutions (ok mebbe not massive improvement but im sure i saw benchmarks somewhere that the 512Mb 6800U did show a dozen fps more at very high res over the 256Mb 6800U)......but at lower resolutions it wont make any real difference...........as for a 6800U 512mb versus a 7800GTX i wouldnt like to comment, would probably work out similar or the 7800GTX winning (remember, i'm talking at the most extreme ressies)

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: knyghtbyte
would need to be running a 30in display or higher with appropriate resolution based on conventional pitch/pixel size (ie a monitor, NOT a TV, most 30in TV's are still only running 1280x720 ressie, they just have a higher pixel/pitch size) for it to show an advantage over a 256Mb 7800......even then the advantage wouldnt be much.....

Given that the 6800 Ultra for the PC doesn't come with dual link, you aren't going to run the Apple display at anything higher than 1900x1200, and that is if it will work on the monitor at all.

 

[coomar]

no

 

[MX2]

Isnt Doom 3 the only game currently taking advantage of 512 vid cards?