Explain the 128 MB and 256 MB differences

[SneakyStuff]

Is it the amount of ram, or how it is used that makes the card what it is? Does a 256 MB card give an edge in texture mapping? I'm just curious. Does a 128 mb DDRII card outperform a regular DDR 256 mb card? Any input from someone that knows their stuff would be cool.

 

[Corporate Thug]

very few games today utilize more than 128 mb of ram so performance is nearly identical expcept for a few games...

 

[BFG10K]

Does a 256 MB card give an edge in texture mapping?

Any time video related data (textures, geometry, frame buffer, shaders, etc) exceeds the amount of VRAM on the card then you endure a performance hit because the data has to be moved backward and forth between the system RAM and the VRAM. The more VRAM you have the less likely you are to be affected by this problem.

With specific regard to 256 MB VRAM, it's useful in a handful of games already but the extra cost probably doesn't justify it. It'll basically be compulsory in the next generation of cards though.

 

[Schadenfroh]

most of the time the extra ram causes it to lose performance, cause the ram chips are usually slower

 

[nick1985]

256 = worthless

 

[Viper96720]

Originally posted by: nick1985
256 = worthless

Wasn't that the same thing some said when everyone had 64MB cards then 128MB cards came out? Same for when 32MB went to 64MB. Just like Windows each new version seems to work better with more system ram. If both cards run at the same speed I wouldn't say having extra ram is worthless. I would rather have too much.

 

[BFG10K]

most of the time the extra ram causes it to lose performance, cause the ram chips are usually slower

Extra RAM doesn't reduce performance; slower RAM does.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Wow, thank you , you all have been very helpful, I was just asking this question because I just recently got my card, and I couldn'g help but wondering if it was worth it. Are you saying that 128 MB of 900 Mhz DDRII would be the same as 256 mb of regular DDR @ 850 Mhz ?

 

[VIAN]

Are you saying that 128 MB of 900 Mhz DDRII would be the same as 256 mb of regular DDR @ 850 Mhz ?

Nope. DDR is the same as DDRII, with the exception that DDRII can scale to higher clock speeds past DDR's limit and it runs hotter.

In your example, sneaky stuff, the 256MB DDR850 is slower than 128MB DDRII900 because it has a slower clock speed.

Remember:

Extra RAM doesn't reduce performance; slower RAM does.

 

[edmundoab]

but price wise isn't in favor of the 256MB cards at all.

 

[TrailerParkKing]

this conversation is interesting since i just stole a 256mb card for $265....hopefully it will out perform the 9800np flashed to pro 128 (new one is a 98 pro 256)

 

[Pete]

Extra RAM is only worth paying for if you'll make use of it, and nowadays you'll basically only make use of it with lots of high-res textures and 4xAA at 1280x960 or higher. So on the literally handful of games that can go over 128MB without AA, it's worth it. If you have to use AA to tip you over 128MB, you'll want nothing less than a 5900 or 9700 using that memory, as lesser cards just won't have the graphical cojones to both read enough bits (256-bit is a must) and move enough pixels (4x2 or 8x1 is a must) at that stiff a setting.

DDR II is improved over DDR in that it's supposed to clock higher, but currently DDR is clocking almost as high as DDR II. There's nothing "better" about a card with DDR II over one with DDR, if both are the same price and speed. 128MB of DDR II would generally still be preferable to 256MB of DDR is the former were clocked much higher.

Crazily enough, 9600XTs in England are showing a ten pound price difference between equally-clocked 128MB and 256MB versions! That's one case where going for more memory is a no-brainer.

 

[kylebisme]

ddrII actually has higher latency than ddr so when clocked at the same speeds the ddrII is a bit slower.

 

[Jeff7181]

I don't understand why people think the quantity of RAM has anything to do with speed.

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I don't understand why people think the quantity of RAM has anything to do with speed.

because the number is higher. it's too bad too.

ive had a friend try and compare my radeon 9700 pro with a Geforce 5200 .. said that they were teh same cause both had 128 MBs of ram.

 

[VIAN]

it's too bad too.

ive had a friend try and compare my radeon 9700 pro with a Geforce 5200 .. said that they were teh same cause both had 128 MBs of ram.

LOL, LOL,....LOL!

 

[Ionizer86]

Back in the 64 to 128MB days, here was what was happening: 64MB Ti4200's were clocked at 250/500 and 128MB ones were clocked at 250/444. And of course the 64MB ones were a bit faster. They also had some 64 and 128MB Ti200's back then. The speed was about equal since the clock on the ram chips were equal IIRC.

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: Sid59

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I don't understand why people think the quantity of RAM has anything to do with speed.

because the number is higher. it's too bad too.

ive had a friend try and compare my radeon 9700 pro with a Geforce 5200 .. said that they were teh same cause both had 128 MBs of ram.

ROTF that is sad.

 

[BFG10K]

DDR is the same as DDRII,

I think DDRII has slightly higher latency than DDR does so it's slightly slower at the same clock speed.