• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gainward creates 128MB GF3...will the others follow (no doubt about it)!

S

ST4RCUTTER

Platinum Member
Should make it 25% faster than the 64MB versions. I'm stoked for two reasons.

1. Other makers should follow suit.
2. Prices on the 64MB and below should drop.


Beefy
 
Be aware, though, that we are talking about Ti 200-based card not one based on the TI 500 chip.

Sneaky Gainward already markets a Ti 200 chip under the Ti/500 label, so the naming is consistent to them.


Big whoop.

I'd rather see Ti500 with 128MB - but would it increase speed 25%? How is more memory going to effect fill rate? It might help FSAA, but that's about it.

 
Wouldn't the design of the software have to take advantage of that? I have yet to see much improvement from 32 to 64M. Textures just aren't that big yet as to make games playable for lower end users..
 
I'd rather see Ti500 with 128MB - but would it increase speed 25%? How is more memory going to effect fill rate? It might help FSAA, but that's about it.

Fill rates are critical at higher resolutions. Miken, you say that you didn't see improvement from 32MB to 64MB, but what resolution were you using? Try running 1600x1200 @32 bit on your older card and see what kind of FPS you get. Now try the same test on your 64MB card and I'll bet the improvement will be evident.

 
Frankly I'm inclined to believe it's damn near a waste.

For many games, 16MB is still enough. There are few games that truly need more then 32MB.
Even at 1600x1200x32bpp most games don't see much of a gain from going to 32MB to 64MB of graphics memory, albeit there are a few select gaming applications that do see gains of a much as 10-15% under the right conditions.

I find it extremely unlikely that more then a very small select handful of gains will see much of a benefit at all, unless your the type to be using FSAA at 1600x1200x32bpp... in which case I can well believe that 128MB of RAM would yield you a decent boost.
 


<< Be aware, though, that we are talking about Ti 200-based card not one based on the TI 500 chip.

Sneaky Gainward already markets a Ti 200 chip under the Ti/500 label, so the naming is consistent to them.


Big whoop.

I'd rather see Ti500 with 128MB - but would it increase speed 25%? How is more memory going to effect fill rate? It might help FSAA, but that's about it. >>

Of course, when you overclock to the maximum level without hardware modifications, the Ti500 only beats the Ti200 buy a few fps (about 2 to 4).
 


<< Fill rates are critical at higher resolutions >>


That is completely the opposite of the truth. As the resolution increases, the memory bandwidth of the card starts to limit the fill rate of which it is capable.
 
<< Fill rates are critical at higher resolutions >>


That is completely the opposite of the truth. As the resolution increases, the memory bandwidth of the card starts to limit the fill rate of which it is capable.


No, it's not the opposite of the truth. Bandwidth is just as critical to fill rate as memory size, maybe more so, but if you check my posts I never said that memory bandwidth was unimportant. If you have high bandwidth, but not enough memory to hold the data the extra bandwidth is wasted. If you have high memory, but not enough bandwidth the data is bottlenecked. Both are important, to overall performance, but neither is "the opposite of truth"...
 


<< Even at 1600x1200x32bpp most games don't see much of a gain from going to 32MB to 64MB of graphics memory >>



Run Quaver demo @ 1600 1200 32bit without TC, you might be surprised....

Also, 128Mb will allow Anti-Aliasing (at least to run!) with very high resolutions.
 
Total waste of money. Especially since most games have TC. You'll see a couple percent performance increase at most.
 
jeez dont you people ever stop, the most important thing about video speed is actually the CPU not the video card
i bet if you lined up an Athlon XP 1900+ with a 8mb ATI Xpert gamer or whatever against a P3 800mhz with a GeForce3 Ti500 i bet the XP would blow it away

and about this hard core fps thing everybody rides on, if you have an Athlon XP 1900+ (about the price of a GeForce3 TI500 really) and a GeForce3 Ti500 you get like 1000 FPS in any game goin right now or in the next like year so why blow big bucks on some new thing with more memory, big deal i dont think im really gonna notice a difference between 500 FPS and 1000FPS, as long as the graphics actualy flow them im pretty good, its just when it starts to jerk like my 500 Celery did that i get concerned
 
Well i do not see many games currently being limited in video card memory so this seems like a waste IMHO.

In general, high res is limited by memory bandwidth/fill rate not the amount of memory.

When 64mb cards where released they were bearly faster tahn the same 32mb model, so i wouldn't expect much difference here, unless under very specific tests.
 


<< jeez dont you people ever stop, the most important thing about video speed is actually the CPU not the video card
i bet if you lined up an Athlon XP 1900+ with a 8mb ATI Xpert gamer or whatever against a P3 800mhz with a GeForce3 Ti500 i bet the XP would blow it away

and about this hard core fps thing everybody rides on, if you have an Athlon XP 1900+ (about the price of a GeForce3 TI500 really) and a GeForce3 Ti500 you get like 1000 FPS in any game goin right now or in the next like year so why blow big bucks on some new thing with more memory, big deal i dont think im really gonna notice a difference between 500 FPS and 1000FPS, as long as the graphics actualy flow them im pretty good, its just when it starts to jerk like my 500 Celery did that i get concerned >>



BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH RIGHT SIR..................
 


<< jeez dont you people ever stop, the most important thing about video speed is actually the CPU not the video card
i bet if you lined up an Athlon XP 1900+ with a 8mb ATI Xpert gamer or whatever against a P3 800mhz with a GeForce3 Ti500 i bet the XP would blow it away >>



Are you being sarcastic or smoking crack?
 
The SIS305 came with 128MB sometime ago before this Gainward GF3 128MB.
128MB is a good selling gimmick.
When ram is cheap, they can make it 256MB.
 
128 megs? Thats pretty sweet, though I don't think I will get another video card until they come out with 256 meg or higher vid cards cause mine will probably be fine until then.
 
1600x1200x32bpp = 7.32 MB frame buffer

1600x1200x32bppx4xFSAA = 29.3 MB frame buffer

then multiply that by at least 2 since you need two frame buffers (one that is being written to screen, one that is currently being drawn) and you can see where 128MB could come in handy.

and a lot of people have triple buffering turned on.
 
I don't buy it. First of all theinquirer is your source.


<< Graphics overclockers Gainward are set to introduce a TI 200-based card with 128Mb of memory, we hear. The card will be equipped with 4.0ns memory. The company has decided to give this card quite a long name: Gainward GeForce3 PowerPack!!! Ti/500 JUMBO Golden Sample. Be aware, though, that we are talking about Ti 200-based card not one based on the TI 500 chip. >>


Graphics overclockers? They actually produce the cards you know... 128 mb of 4ns DDR sounds a little expensive also. JUMBO Golden Sample? Right...



<< Sneaky Gainward already markets a Ti 200 chip under the Ti/500 label, so the naming is consistent to them. >>



No. Their ti 500 card is named ti/550, which is a little sneaky, but their Ti 200 card is the ti/450.http://www.gainward.com/us/products/vgacard.htm
I also thought that Golden Sample cards came with faster RAM, not an overclock but i could be wrong. I've never owned one. Can someone clarify? This just seems a little fishy to me.
 
What sounded fishy to me was how this one nVidia card was given "special enhancements to improve performance". If they're not referring to overclocking, they have some kind of special drivers that do something to either actually enhance performance or degrade quality for sake of speed. (We've been there before.)
In either case, you'd be stuck with their drivers if you want this "special enhancement technique."
 
128 MB is freaking nuts. specialy when todays PC still can be found with only 128 MB of ram. So who is getting one?
 
Only 1 good thing about the 128MB video card... prices will drop on the already overkill 64MB cards.. my 32MB card runs everything just fine, and on a 64MB GTS card, it barely improves over the 32.. 128 is a waste, but prices will go down on the 64's for sure, I'll get a GF3 then maybe!!! 😀
 


<< Only 1 good thing about the 128MB video card... prices will drop on the already overkill 64MB cards.. my 32MB card runs everything just fine, and on a 64MB GTS card, it barely improves over the 32.. 128 is a waste, but prices will go down on the 64's for sure, I'll get a GF3 then maybe!!! 😀 >>



Me too, I want a GF3... I hope this pulls down the price bigtime. But seriously, what a waste. The only question I have is would this have any benefit to anyone? (besides a few percentage points on benchmarks)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top