Benifits of 512mb ram over 256mb

[cubby1223]

Here's my dilemma, I'm presently looking at either a 512mb x1950 pro, or for $35 more a 256mb 7950gt. All the benchmarks out there compare a 256mb x1950 pro and a 512mb 7950gt. I've got a 1920x1200 monitor - not a huge gamer, usually single player games, graphic adventures, Condemned, Hitman. Do not play any online MMORPG, RTS, or multiplayer FPS games.

Basically asking here what 512mb can do for me, versus a more powerful gpu. I previously had a 256mb 7900gs then gave that away & have a 7300gs temporarily. I'd definitely like to go better than the 7900gs was, but I'm on a budget so can't go crazy.

Thanks.

 

[Univac]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
I'd definitely like to go better than the 7900gs was, but I'm on a budget so can't go crazy.

Thanks.

Wow, you just asked my question for me.

Thank you.

In for subscription

 

[lupi]

Toms video card list shows the 7950gt and x1950pro as being on an equivalent level. Unless you really think the 7950 is going to bench much better for you, I'd be interested in taking the extra memory on the 1950 for that monitor rez size.

 

[chizow]

In the past, 256 vs. 512 didn't make much of a difference on x1900/7800/7900 generation parts. Then again, not really sure how those parts did at 1920, since that wasn't a resolution I was dealing with at the time. Still, even with older games I'm not quite sure those cards are powerful enough to push that higher resolution (really only became a "mainstream" resolution in DX9 games with the G80/R600s).

When comparing current parts though, there is a difference between a 320 GTS and 640 GTS at 1920x1200, so if you had to choose between one of those I'd probably go with the one with more RAM if performance is otherwise similar. However, it might not make any difference at all if the GPU is taxed to the point you're getting poor frame rates regardless of frame buffer size.

Personally, I'd look at something like 2900pro or 320MB GTS if you had to buy today. Should both perform much better than either of those parts at 1920. If you can wait a little bit (November-ish), I'd wait for the 8800GT or RV670 (2950XT/pro?) as they should bring excellent mid-range performance at a $200-$250 price point.

 

[Sylvanas]

With the 7950GT and X1950 being *similar* performing parts, I'd go with the 512mb card if you are going to be gaming at 1920x1200 given you were compelled to buy now, however there are cards dropping into that price range soon enough with a refresh expected by NV/ATI in the coming months so it may pay to wait.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

the more ram the better. Higher textures, higher AA
Just better.

MMM what about a 1.5 GB 8800 Ultra?

 

[s44]

Wait for the 8800GT/2950pro. I wouldn't buy anything over $100 at this point.

 

[Bateluer]

To me, it doesn't sound like you'd use the extra RAM, given the tasks you've listed. I'd save the money and go with the cheaper card.

Newer titles are making use of the extra RAM though, and future games in your genre's will likely make use of the additional memory. Current games in many genres already do.

 

[cubby1223]

But I don't wanna wait! I have a 7300gs right now.


I found a review that compares the memory sizes on a 7950gt:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...-foxconn-gf7950gt.html

Appears what performance level I'm targeting, I will not really benefit from the extra memory. With Hitman being the most demanding game I plan to play in the near future, looks like the performance boost of the 7950gt would be worth it even if I give up the memory size (looking at a used card, ~$165 including the cost of a vf900 if I can get it). Maybe next year I'll hit it big and be able to buy an 8800 Ultra.

 

[mushroomx]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
To me, it doesn't sound like you'd use the extra RAM, given the tasks you've listed. I'd save the money and go with the cheaper card.

Newer titles are making use of the extra RAM though, and future games in your genre's will likely make use of the additional memory. Current games in many genres already do.

Hey, i was wondering which games do, so i dont regret having gotten the 8800gts 640mb XD

 

[JustaGeek]

Some games, like Quake 4 or Doom 3, will not run in Ultra Quality settings with less then 512MB of Video Memory.

I don't think that any future games will be less demanding...

Go with the 512MB.

 

[Univac]

Is there an image quality difference anymore??

I went from an x800xl to a evga 7900gs, and i have always felt that the ati card looked better color-wise etc.

BUT,I know it just may have been that I was used to the ati .

 

[dennilfloss]

Textures, textures, textures!

 

[DaPoets]

Come big or go home.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Textures, textures, textures!

Yup!

For example... on my old system I had a mobo with a PCI-E16x slot and AGP8X slot. I was running an X1600 Pro AGP with 512 MB. Playing Quake 4 @ 1600x1200 was smooth on the X1600 because I had plenty of memory to put all the textures in - max fps was maybe 35 but it was smooth and there was no slowdown when you entered a new area. Then I bought an X1950 Pro PCI-E16x 256 MB to replace the old card. Now playing on the exact same system Quake 4 ran horribly at 1600x1200. It would average 65 fps BUT as soon as you entered a new area it would choke while it swapped textures for about two-three seconds.

For high res gaming the more memory the better!