Game memory usage

[Zstream]

Game memory usage

As you can tell the 320mb GTS lacks the memory for today's games. I can only imagine the newer games.

 

[Modular]

I'm not sure what was up with the system memory usage numbers. They are obviously way off. As far as the GPU memory settings, those are some really interesting numbers. It's pretty commonly known that the 320mb version is too little memory for 1680 x 1050 though, so the OP of that thread shouldn't have been too surprised at the results.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Modular
I'm not sure what was up with the system memory usage numbers. They are obviously way off. As far as the GPU memory settings, those are some really interesting numbers. It's pretty commonly known that the 320mb version is too little memory for 1680 x 1050 though, so the OP of that thread shouldn't have been too surprised at the results.

I am the OP, the system usage is not what you are thinking. It reports it entirely different. I am not surprised by the numbers but owning my last GTS & GTX I had to wonder why high textures made the games crawl. I knew it was because of the memory but I was unaware it was that bad.

 

[Modular]

Ah, I didn't read the OP name at all...

I agree that it's great to have the numbers there to back up the knowledge. It's amazing to me how quickly video memory gets chewed up by these older games. FarCry for example still takes up alot of video mem at that resolution. It's an amazing looking game though that's for sure.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Modular
I'm not sure what was up with the system memory usage numbers. They are obviously way off. As far as the GPU memory settings, those are some really interesting numbers. It's pretty commonly known that the 320mb version is too little memory for 1680 x 1050 though, so the OP of that thread shouldn't have been too surprised at the results.

It's most likely the system memory used for textures.

 

[nZone]

Put Vista on; now your 320MB video card will have 640MB. But make sure you have enough physical memory installed otherwise it will go to pagefile on this disk.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Wow. What version of Far Cry was that?

 

[fire400]

quit your whining, just get another video card with a stronger engine and more video memory.

that said, the time a DX10 game comes out, you'd have had enough time to save up ten dollars a day to sell your current CraPhix card to get the GTX version with 1 gig.

problem solved.

 

[Xarick]

pffft I was playing most of those games on my 9800pro.
My 8800gts 320 plays them all smooth as glass on 1440x900.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: fire400
quit your whining, just get another video card with a stronger engine and more video memory.

that said, the time a DX10 game comes out, you'd have had enough time to save up ten dollars a day to sell your current CraPhix card to get the GTX version with 1 gig.

problem solved.

Huh? I have a GTX & GTS..... Please read the thread before posting.

 

[josh6079]

quit your whining, just get another video card with a stronger engine and more video memory.

Last I checked, video cards don't have engines...

that said, the time a DX10 game comes out, you'd have had enough time to save up ten dollars a day to sell your current CraPhix card to get the GTX version with 1 gig.

What GTX has 1 Gig?

 

[TanisHalfElven]

not too bad. from my own experiance 320 is enough for a card like the 8800gts. even with QTP3 in olbiivon my vram usage seldom goes above 308.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
not too bad. from my own experiance 320 is enough for a card like the 8800gts. even with QTP3 in olbiivon my vram usage seldom goes above 308.

That may be but it depends on your resolution.

 

[MarcVenice]

hold up, in your 'report' the videocard memory hit the max of 305.26 a few times. So basicaly your conclusion is that 320mb is not enough if you wish to run resolutions higher then 1680 x 1050, at high settings with 4x AA ? Right ? Or am I missing something ?

I would say your conclusion lacks validity though. You assume something yet didn't mention it anywhere. How many gamers have screens supporting resolutions of 1680 x 1050 and up ? All 320mb gts owners ? 50% ? 25% ? I wonder ... Also, you will have to test the same games on the same settings with a gts 640. Why ? Some games simply are massive resource hogs and eat up everything they can get. SC for example, crappy-est optimized game I've seen in a while. If 640mb actually shows a big improvement, then your statement holds true, for gamers using res-es of 1680 x 1050 and up ...

 

[sthaznpride17]

Keep in mind that people have mentioned the possibility that the the memory managment for the 8800 320MB is terrible with the drivers. I myself have experienced the pains of limited memory, both in Dark Messiah, and Lord of the Rings: Online. Both, when turned up to the highest setttings, use high-resolution textures, very large textures that cripple my card like no other. Don't bother adding AA to the mix. I run at 1280 x 1024 too, which I thought would be perfect for this card.

But look on the brightside! The 8800GTS 640MB is only 339.99$ on eVGA's website, which means you can step up for only around 60 bucks (including shipping)!

 

[Modular]

Here's another review on a 7900GT 512. This has some lower resolutions for your viewing pleasure.


Also Zstream: where did you get the video memory watcher program from?

 

[darkrisen2003]

so if i plan on gaming at 1680 x 1050 then I have to get the gts 640m or the gtx? With my budget I will only have 500 - 550 to throw for my cpu,video card,cpu cooler, and a dvd burner so im sorta limited. My thoughts were that I could get a core2 6600 \ 8600 gts \ the thermaltake ultra 120 \ and that 20x lite on dvd burner and just step up in a couple months when the new stuff comes out and the prices fall. Is this a bad idea or is there a better setup I could try for my price range?

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: darkrisen2003
so if i plan on gaming at 1680 x 1050 then I have to get the gts 640m or the gtx? With my budget I will only have 500 - 550 to throw for my cpu,video card,cpu cooler, and a dvd burner so im sorta limited. My thoughts were that I could get a core2 6600 \ 8600 gts \ the thermaltake ultra 120 \ and that 20x lite on dvd burner and just step up in a couple months when the new stuff comes out and the prices fall. Is this a bad idea or is there a better setup I could try for my price range?

try o get a slower processor. e4300 or so. don't get the thermatake. waste of money if you on a budget. despite what you may hear 320 mb is enough if your willing to reduce AA levels.

 

[darkrisen2003]

meant to say thermalright not thermaltake sorry my mistake

 

[Munky]

About your Stalker numbers, I've seen this game eat up 512MB of video mem even at 1280x960. It starts out lower, but as you move around in the game it steadily consumes increasingly more memory.

 

[kylebisme]

Yeah, Stalker on highest settings will eat far more than 320MB of video memory at even 640x480. Heck, even Doom3 will.

Zstream, did just fire up the games and not play around much? In most games the memory useage will increse as you progress though them.

 

[CaiNaM]

stalker never exceeded 320mb for me..

in fact, @1680x1050 there wasn't a single game that ran noticeably better on my 640mb GTS than my 320mb GTS, AA, HDR, or both. my opinion is that unless you're above 1920, it really makes little, if any difference. the only reason i went with 640mb was i ended up getting it for only $40 more...

upcoming games may change that, but anything out now runs fine on the 320mb version. i'd bet most if not all of the ppl who have the 320mb card would concur...

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
stalker never exceeded 320mb for me..

Of course it won't if keep the settings turned down enough, but with everything cranked I have to turn the resolution down to 1088x612 just to aviod swapping on my 512MB card.