Anand's tests of 256 vs 512 MB video in Oblivion

[imported_Kiwi]

Last spring, Anand wrote three articles in which the Oblivion game was a central element, and in one of those, described tests with ATI X1600 video cards in two onboard memory sizes, showing surprisingly slower results for the cards with larger memory.

But I didn't find that article under any of the main headings on the Home page. Only one article in the CPU section, and another in the GPU sectrion. I hope someone bookmarked that particular article I couldn't find, and will be kind enough to post it here?

Thanks.

 

[Kromis]

Could it possibly be on FiringSquad? They *might* have it. Don't recall.

 

[imported_Kiwi]

I did have a bookmark to the "Mainstream" video article at Firing Squad, and didn't see any mention of 512 MB cards in it. Bit-Tech did have some comparisons at the high end level for Oblivion, in which only one (nVidia, none from ATI) card showed some reason for getting more than 256 MBs to play that game. Firing Squad also had three articles, as I recall, but on my first pass through my bookmarks today (large file), I believe I only came up with two.

 

[Kromis]

Well, this is the only page I can find :|

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/oblivion_mainstream_performance/page2.asp

Not sure if that's what you're lookin' for...

Whoops...not what you're lookin' for.

 

[TheRyuu]

Let me sum it up.

256mb is fine for lower resolutions (1600x1200 and below) and even works with the LOD mods for the landscape textures.

512mb is good for the extra texture packs (Quarls) and the landscape LOD mods.

In either case, if your just playing the original Oblivion, 256mb is plenty.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: wizboy11
Let me sum it up.

256mb is fine for lower resolutions (1600x1200 and below) and even works with the LOD mods for the landscape textures.

512mb is good for the extra texture packs (Quarls) and the landscape LOD mods.

In either case, if your just playing the original Oblivion, 256mb is plenty.

i am finding it *worth it* to have the extra 256 MB vRAM -- comparing my old Visontek x1950p with my new Sapphire with 512MB ... and i am only running 12x9.

especially with NWN2 ... details a 'notch' higher.

i will give Oblivion a try ... and of course this is purely subjective

 

[imported_Kiwi]

I've been playing NWN2 this winter; the number of X1300 and X1600 video cards being produced has increased hugely, and new gamers are buying the stupid things because the "512" makes them sound fast and powerful. I consider it a type of SCAM to sell cards that slow, and with that narrow of a Memory System (128 Bit) with more than 256 MBs. But I wanted to document my claim with a reference to an actual test procedure already performed and published. It may have been within Anand's Blog, but I really swear that it appeared here, somewhere, and I had a link to it at one time (probably on the backup PC in here, that had a Win98 install still working nicely until just before Christmas, and blew its OSes up like crazy when faced with more than 512 MBs of RAM after I added a second DIMM to it).

 

[apoppin]

i remember an article also ... but i can't remember where ... Oblivion seemed to really benefit

as i recall it was only the higher end cards ... a x1600 anything wouldn't matter

 

[imported_Kiwi]

Thanks. I'm envious of that card of yours. My budget being what it is, I had to wait until early last summer and a few slow bidders bidding against me at eBay to get my X800 XT-PE at a price I could afford. I'd started Oblivion with a ("shudder") FX card, the plain 5900, big-double-wide, with almost as noisy of a fan assembly as the dust buster 5800. That lasted about a week, and I took a break, then I played for three months with a Radeon 9800 XT that handled the game nicely, but really wanted to run hot (as does the X800 XT).

I hope someone else wanders by with a better memory than you or I about the missing reference article.