Gainward Ti4200 64mb or 128mb?

[Sleek]

From all the review benchmarks I've seen they all say the 64mb is faster than the 128mb. But people say that the extra 64mb will be good to have for future games. Is the extra 64mb better for overclocking?

 

[LuDaCriS66]

the 64mb version will be better for overclocking because faster ram is used. Usually, if not always, cards with 64mb tend to be faster than cards with 128mb..

 

[Sleek]

So why get a 128mb?

 

[LuDaCriS66]

128mb is beneficial for the higher resolutions

 

[AnAndAustin]

Jeez, haven't you guys checked the other posts on this subject! Well here goes again.

The only difference is default clocks, how far they o/c is 99% dependent upon the type of ns RAM used. 4.0ns is standard and gets to around 550mhz, 3.6ns can be found on both 128MB and 64MB cards and gets to 600mhz.

GF4TI4200 128MB: Default clocks of 250/444.
GF4TI4200 64MB: Default clocks of 250/500.

Both are still faster, even at default clocks than the GF3TI500 & full blown ATI Radeon8500. Both are identical in technology to the GF4TI4400/4600 the differences being; cost, shorter board (so fits more mobos), fewer layers, less power regulation and cheaper memory technology (TSOP rather than BGA).

Each 4200 has its own merits making both an excellent choice. Here's the links I've found.

Tech-Report
4200-64 has only a 1.5% advantage over 4200-128.
O/C 4200-64 to 275/550, reached 300/580 but a little unstable.

TomsHW
4200-64 (simulated 4200-128 o/c to250/500) has a 6.5% advantage over 4200-128 (250/444) but bear in mind the simulated 4200-64 has 128MB.
O/C 4200-128 to 310/550.

AnAndTech
O/C Gainward4200-128 to 330/540.

FiringSquad
4200-64 has a 1% advantage.
O/C 4200-64 to 285/600 which was benchmarked and showed a nice increase except for Commanche4, it was still slower than the 4200-128 at default speed (250/444).

AnAndTech 4200 roundup
Roundup of 4200 cards and esp shows 128MB vs 64MB!
Shows a bunch of 4200 cards and how 64MB may become a limitation sooner rather than later.

The FiringSquad example of Commanche4 showing the 4200-64 (o/c 285/600) slower than 4200-128 (def 250/444) could suggest the performance hit when a game requires more than 64MB. But also check out the last link which shows that 64MB cards will begin to lag behind 128MB cards, more likely sooner rather than later.

According to FiringSquad regarding AA, 4200-64 is 8% faster at AA than the 4200-128, showing that RAM speed is more important than RAM amount for AA (unless RAM limit is reached).

Essentially it really comes down to the type of RAM implimented so forget fancy HSF and RAM HS. 4.0ns RAM o/c to about 550mhz, 3.6ns RAM o/c to about 600mhz (on 4200 cards). This is regardless of whether the card has 64MB or 128MB, generally both come with 4.0ns RAM. Be careful not to pay too much for the faster RAM, you may find the 4400 is within your reach and that would always be a better buy (unless the long design won't fit your mobo).

For 4200 cards (whether 64 or 128):
5.0ns gets to 480mhz
4.0ns gets to 550mhz
3.6ns gets to 600mhz
3.3ns gets to 600mhz

One final note, the SUMA SPECIAL GF4TI4200-128MB which uses 3.3ns BGA RAM and a design from the TI4400/4600. It has a default of 250/550 (usual=250/444) and has o/c to 305/705 beating the GF4TI4600!
Suma

 

[acroig]

Great post AnAndAustin! My 128mb Gainward is stable at 320/550. Very happy with it. I would recommend you go with 128MBs as newer games have more and more trextures. My .02c.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Any 4200 card is superb value (just look at the GF3TI500 and Radeon8500 prices 6 months ago). However there is a lot of rumour that the 4200-64MB is the better card which of course is false. At default speeds it is a close call, but it's o/c that truly shows the real picture. Fancy HSF and RAM HS are simply decorative, it's the RAM type that's the important factor. You can check by reading the last 2 numbers on the second line from the RAM chips themselves, eg. AB123CD456-EF40 denotes 4.0ns. 4200-128MB are just as likely to use faster RAM chips as 4200-64MB ones, but most use 4.0ns.

Even some current games can use up more than 64MB, and this will become more and more common. So it makes sense to get 128MB unless on a very tight budget, even if you plan to sell in a year, it will be much easier to shift a 128MB card than a 64MB one! If anybody has a CPU 1ghz+ then GF3TI200 and Radeon8500LE (Radeons only in US & Canada) are excellent budget buys, but GF4TI4200 is definitely the best buy, anybody using less than a GF3 or Radeon8500LE should definitely upgrade. For current owners of GF3 or Radeon8500 cards there really isn't a need to upgrade, those cards still cut the mustard! For them it is worth waiting for ATI and nVidias new cards. But bear in mind that whatever happens the 4200 will age well, the enhanced Radeon8500 is due out soon and should give the 4200 stiff competition at $150 (if the poor AA can be sorted out), but I doubt either company can afford to produce these cards at a lower price! When the next gen ATI & nVidia cards hit the 4400 & 4600 will surely drop in price, but bear in mind these are going to be high-end cards around $400 initially, don't expect a budget version. It will come down to pure performance as AGP8x is more about marketing than perf, and it will be a year before any quantity of games take advantage of DX9, by then they'll be bigger better cards (and hopefully budget DX9 cards too)!