Geforce FX: 128meg or 256meg Buying Opinions

gizbug

Platinum Member
May 14, 2001
2,621
0
76
Looks like the first week of FEB, the 128meg version will be out, and around mid-march, the 256meg version will be out (for around 450-500 dollars)

Are most of you going to wait for the 256meg version? I think I will, what's one more month anyways

 

308nato

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2002
2,674
0
0
By the time you actually "need" to spend money on a 256meg card, this one would be "outdated" and in all likelihood more expensive than one could be bought in the future IMHO.

Where has Nvidia stated there will even be a 256 meg version of the NV30 ? It was my understanding that they would not go to 256meg until they upped the bandwidth to match.
 

308nato

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2002
2,674
0
0
Originally posted by: tbates757
Originally posted by: Jalapeno
I wont the 256meg version! It is much better. I wait. Best deal yet.

LOL

Umm... What are you trying to say?


I'm guessing the sarcasm smiley was needed there.

 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,672
2,817
126
Since there are really no 256 MB boards available for testing at this stage nobody really knows how much faster they are than 128 MB cards (if at all). While games like UT2003 and Doom3 might show a small performance gain, it probably will be nowhere near large as the performance delta between 64 MB cards vs 128 MB cards.

My advice to you is to save your money and get the 128 MB version, unless you're willing to wait for the 256 MB variants to see the benchmark results. At this stage though I doubt the performance difference will be significant but the cost difference will be.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
I would guess that any performance increase the 256MB version will have over the 128MB parts will come from GPU and RAM speed increases in today's games. There still isn't any game out today that needs 128MB of onboard RAM.

Chiz
 

Bovinicus

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2001
3,145
0
0
I would get a 128MB card. You barely need 128MB now. It will be a year or two befoe 256MB is necessary. By that time, you will probably buy a new video card anyway making the extra memory moot.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: Bovinicus
I would get a 128MB card. You barely need 128MB now. It will be a year or two befoe 256MB is necessary. By that time, you will probably buy a new video card anyway making the extra memory moot.

And maybe by then 8X AGP will mean something ;)

Chiz
 

Metalloid

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
3,064
0
0
I would definetly wait for the 256mb to come out. I wouldn't buy it, but with any luck it would drop the 128mb price.
 

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
;) All very good points! Until we see the bms we won't know for sure, but the cost diff will be huge and I'd expect it to be more of the AGP8x or ATA133 type thing, naming and marketing over any true perf advantage. Rad9700 is 256MB ready and I'd imagine it will be released when nVidia release their 256MB part, not when there's any consumer need for it.
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,512
2
81
Adding memory to a video card doesn't automatically give you a speed boost like having higher MHz does. Having more memory than a particular program uses is pointless. Take neverwinter nights for example. The largest texture pack they even offer is 64mb. Games in the near future will no doubt take advantage of 128MB of texture memory but by the time games use 256MB of textures, the NV30 will have been surpassed.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,672
2,817
126
The largest texture pack they even offer is 64mb.
Yeah but the higher the resolution and the higher the FSAA level the more VRAM it takes to render the scene. So even if the texture demands stay at constant 64 MB the rest of the demands can easily exceed the 128 MB total space if you use high enough settings.

I'm not saying to get the 256 MB board, all I'm saying that's it's quite easy to exceed 128 MBs.
 

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
;) Well those bms do coincode from another source, it would seem nVidia's dustbuster-FX is at best on par with the Rad9700 although it may improve minorly as the hw and drivers become final. I'd prefer a 9700 personally, and that's before we see what nVidia do with the pricing. One thing which did strike me about the review was the inaccuracy involving nVidia's and ATI's AF techniques. Unless things have changed since the Rad8500 and GF3 (or maybe GF4TI) days when I last took an exhaustive look at AF it is simply the notation that differs, ATI's 16tap is the technical equivilent of nVidia's 8xAF, nVidia's is slightly better quality but ATI's takes only a tiny perf hit and I know which I'd prefer. So if this is the case the review is a little harsh on GF-FX by using nVidia's 8xAF and only ATI's 8tap which aren't technicly equivilent (again unless things have changed, or I'm just plain wrong LOL). I'll be waiting for GF-FX & Rad9700-DDRII to hit the streets before getting my next card but I'm pretty sure it's going to be a Rad9700, esp now ATI appear to have gotten their international pricing sorted.