"I want to futureproof my videocard purchase and will choose a videocard with the most videocard memory" - Investigation

[Nemesis 1]

SO here is a new bench . that actually does what some have asked for . Try it anf post results.

http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/in...downandbuy&langx=en&a=

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Genx87
My rule of thumb has been to get the 2nd best card in a generation. I got a 6800GT when the NV40 showed up. I got an 8800GTS 640 when the NV80 showed up.

Both cards worked well through the entire life of the gaming machine until the whole thing was replaced. And I didnt have to spend the extra cash on the high end part. Saving myself about 400 bucks between both cards.

I've done the same for a good few years.
GF4 Ti4400
Radeon 9800
Geforce 7800GT
Radeon HD4850.
Seems to work out reasonably well, better price/performance ratio than the high end that's for sure.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: apoppin

not necessarily

it has a 512 bit bus and a slightly different architecture [ring bus]

Yes, but your problem isn't related to performance so memory bandwidth won't be a factor. We know this because your 4870 is generating a high framerate.

The problem you're describing sounds like hitching caused by a lack of VRAM; it doesn't generally show up in benchmarks or framerate tests but it is detectable in actual gameplay.

Testing the 2900 XT could work but the problem is it?ll generate a far lower framerate than the 4870 at the same settings so it won?t be a proper comparison.

 

[AzN]

Rivatuner vram monitor only works with windows xp. Doesn't work with Vista.

Far as I know the only games that use more than 512mb of vram @ 1920x1200 is Crysis very high, WIC very high and maybe oblivion with all the mods. I'm sure there's maybe couple more games that might be pushing it with 512mb of vram at 1920 +AA.

 

[deerhunter716]

Originally posted by: Azn
Rivatuner vram monitor only works with windows xp. Doesn't work with Vista.

Far as I know the only games that use more than 512mb of vram @ 1920x1200 is Crysis very high, WIC very high and maybe oblivion with all the mods. I'm sure there's maybe couple more games that might be pushing it with 512mb of vram at 1920 +AA.

I agree. I can run COD4, Warhammer Online, and others with AA and AF on without one problem period with my 512MB 4870. With gaming at 1920x1200 and in my opinion I really do not even need the AA on at that resolution; just no need to spend the extra $ for the 1GB cards at all. The 512 MB will handle all the games just fine until the next refresh of cards when these cards again will be "too slow" compared to the new cards.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: apoppin

not necessarily

it has a 512 bit bus and a slightly different architecture [ring bus]

Yes, but your problem isn't related to performance so memory bandwidth won't be a factor. We know this because your 4870 is generating a high framerate.

The problem you're describing sounds like hitching caused by a lack of VRAM; it doesn't generally show up in benchmarks or framerate tests but it is detectable in actual gameplay.

Testing the 2900 XT could work but the problem is it?ll generate a far lower framerate than the 4870 at the same settings so it won?t be a proper comparison.

*in bold*

yes, that IS what i think i am describing

i am thinking of now testing the 2900xt 512MB/512 bit against 2900p 512MB/256-bit - of course with lesser setting - just enough to strain the graphics system while comparing "smoothness" at what is considered playable resolutions

i got my GTX280 up and running. i am looking forward to seeing how it does in these same games that are not smooth with 4870

The X2 can be run with a core disabled - and it is generally [across-the-board] slightly slower than a 4870

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Azn
Rivatuner vram monitor only works with windows xp. Doesn't work with Vista.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Far as I know the only games that use more than 512mb of vram @ 1920x1200 is Crysis very high, WIC very high and maybe oblivion with all the mods. I'm sure there's maybe couple more games that might be pushing it with 512mb of vram at 1920 +AA.

There might be a benefit in Crysis for additional ram, but the GPU is too slow to benefit from it. A quick search around the net shows none of these single cards are good enough for 1920x1200 4AA for the games where there *could be* a benefit from having > 512mb of ram.

Crysis
TechReport - Crysis 1920x1200 4AA
GTX 280 1GB = 20.3 (min 17.0)
GTX 260 896MB = 17.4 (min 15.0)
HD 4870 512MB = 18.5 (min 15.0)

Digit Life - Crysis DX10 1920x1200 4AA
GTX 280 = 15.8
GTX 260 = 13.0
4870 512 = 13.9

Xbitlabs - Crysis DX 10 HDR 1920x1200
GTX 280 = 22.4 (min 13)
GTX 260 = 18.3 (min 10)
4870 512 = 21.8 (min 10)

Computerbase.de - Crysis - 1920x1200 4AA/16AF
GTX 280 = 15.6
GTX 260 = 12.7
4870 512 = 11.7
4850 1GB = 10.0

Bit-Tech.net - Crysis - 1920x1200 2AA/8AF DX10, HDR
GTX 280 = 34.7 (min 24.0)
GTX 260 = 28.4 (min 19.0)
4870 512 = 25.2 (min 11.0)

Legion Hardware - Crysis - 1920x1200 0AA, DX10
GTX 280 = 39
GTX 260 = 33
4870 512 = 34

World in Conflict
Tom's Hardware - World in Conflict -1920x1200 4AA
GTX 280 = 38
GTX 260 = 31
4870 512 = 31

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/2008/test_sapphire_radeon_hd_4850_1024_mb/20/#abschnitt_world_in_conflict
<b">Computerbase.de - World in Conflict - 2560x1600 4AA/16AF</a>
GTX 280 = 27 (min 10)
GTX 260 = 25 (min 10)
4870 512 = 28 (min 12)

Digit-Life - World in Conflict 1920x1200 4AA
GTX 280 = 32.8
GTX 260 = 27.6
4870 512 = 34.8

Xbitlabs - World in Conflict 1920x1200 DX10 4AA
GTX 280 = 38.9
GTX 260 = 32.9
4870 512 = 31.9
4850 1GB = 28.6

Legion Hardware - World in Conflict - 1920x1200 4AA/16AF DX10
GTX 280 = 45
GTX 260 = 39
4870 512 = 40

You can see the cards are already so strained to begin with, going beyond 1920x1200 where 512mb will be a bottleneck will bring all of them to their knees anyway.

 

[apoppin]

going beyond 1920x1200 where 512mb will be a bottleneck will bring all of them to their knees anyway

We are not going beyond 19x12 in my tests. And the hitching is seen - obvious and irritating - when the minimum FPS is *above 30*
--we need to look at "smoothness" of gameplay

screw looking at "min-average-max" FPS figures

they say nothing about "smoothness" of game play

:Q



almost nothing

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: apoppin

going beyond 1920x1200 where 512mb will be a bottleneck will bring all of them to their knees anyway

We are not going beyond 19x12 in my tests. And the hitching is seen - obvious and irritating - when the minimum FPS is *above 30*
--we need to look at "smoothness" of gameplay

screw looking at "average" FPS figures in Crysis

I am not doubting that you are having problems. You can see from the benchmarks above that these latest games aren't playable on either GTX260 or 4870 at 1920x1200 no matter how you look at it. That's why going beyond 1920x1200 to expose further memory limitation is already pointless since they can't even manage 19x12 to begin with.

But the fact that 2900XT seems smoother than your 4870 with same 512mb is odd.

Originally posted by: apoppin
The X2 can be run with a core disabled - and it is generally [across-the-board] slightly slower than a 4870

If that's the case, that doesn't help with the argument that 1GB > 512mb on mid-high ends cards?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: apoppin

going beyond 1920x1200 where 512mb will be a bottleneck will bring all of them to their knees anyway

We are not going beyond 19x12 in my tests. And the hitching is seen - obvious and irritating - when the minimum FPS is *above 30*
--we need to look at "smoothness" of gameplay

screw looking at "average" FPS figures in Crysis

I am not doubting that you are having problems. You can see from the benchmarks above that these latest games aren't playable on either GTX260 or 4870 at 1920x1200 no matter how you look at it. That's why going beyond 1920x1200 to expose further memory limitation is already pointless since they can't even manage 19x12 to begin with.

But the fact that 2900XT seems smoother than your 4870 with same 512mb is odd.

You misunderstand me - when i load each card to the point where the FPS drop near 30:

1) my 4870[x1] when *strained* at 19x12 will exhibit irritating hitching
- even though the FPS are above 30

2) my 2900xt when *strained* at 16x12 - will not exhibit this
- even though the FPS are also barely above 30

3) my 4870 when *strained* at 19x12 [much more than 4870; by adding 8xMSAA] will not exhibit hitching [like 4870x1 does]
- even though the FPS are also *barely* above 30

they are not both running Crysis [for example] at 19x12 with identical same settings

my POINT is that - although the minimum FPS indicate 4870 should be smooth - it is not

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
you'll probably be better off not spending extra $ and saving it towards an upgrade in 12 months anyway

Translation: There is no "future proof."

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: Zap
Translation: There is no "future proof."

Amen, brother.

Show me the future and then I will show you "future proof".

 

[BolleY2K]

The 640 MB G80 benefits more if overclocked - the GPU ist just too slow as are the Shaders. Clocking mine to 650/1000 makes quite a difference and also utilizes the 320-Bit Bus more.

If you give it more clocks, also the benefit of the additional memory vs. the 320 MB version becomes greater, because you can actually make use of it in some games.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: apoppin

going beyond 1920x1200 where 512mb will be a bottleneck will bring all of them to their knees anyway

We are not going beyond 19x12 in my tests. And the hitching is seen - obvious and irritating - when the minimum FPS is *above 30*
--we need to look at "smoothness" of gameplay

screw looking at "min-average-max" FPS figures

they say nothing about "smoothness" of game play

I didn't notice anything like you're describing with either my 512MB 8800GT or my 512MB 4850 while gaming at 1920x1200. Sometimes I noticed low framerates, but nothing that couldn't be attributed to lack of GPU power.

Are you sure it couldn't be hard drive activity or some other process causing the hitching? My system specs are nothing extraordinary. Stock Q6600, stock 4850/8800GT, 7200 RPM SATA-II hard drive and 4GB memory on Vista 64 Ultimate.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
you'll probably be better off not spending extra $ and saving it towards an upgrade in 12 months anyway

Translation: There is no "future proof."

Of course there is. Some parts do out last than other parts.

 

[Keysplayr]

There is only future "resistence" parts. In the end they all become less than adequate eventually. Some take longer than others.

 

[Munky]

Define "future..."

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: apoppin

going beyond 1920x1200 where 512mb will be a bottleneck will bring all of them to their knees anyway

We are not going beyond 19x12 in my tests. And the hitching is seen - obvious and irritating - when the minimum FPS is *above 30*
--we need to look at "smoothness" of gameplay

screw looking at "min-average-max" FPS figures

they say nothing about "smoothness" of game play

I didn't notice anything like you're describing with either my 512MB 8800GT or my 512MB 4850 while gaming at 1920x1200. Sometimes I noticed low framerates, but nothing that couldn't be attributed to lack of GPU power.

Are you sure it couldn't be hard drive activity or some other process causing the hitching? My system specs are nothing extraordinary. Stock Q6600, stock 4850/8800GT, 7200 RPM SATA-II hard drive and 4GB memory on Vista 64 Ultimate.

yes

there is no unusual HD activity or swapping to disk
--i know that one

no, it is a "choppiness" or a lack of fluidity which i notice more with my 4870 than i do with my 4870x2 or GTX280

it is only really noticeable at 19x12 when maximum details and filtering are way up; and the FPS stay constant above 40!!

Define "future..."

.. later, perhaps .. when it will have arrived

:clock:

 

[deerhunter716]

Well like I have posted I get smooth as butter gameplay on my VisionTek 4870 512MB card. It seems like some experience no issues and some do; so maybe it's hit and miss?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: deerhunter716
Well like I have posted I get smooth as butter gameplay on my VisionTek 4870 512MB card. It seems like some experience no issues and some do; so maybe it's hit and miss?

Well, what would you call gameplay on an X2 then?
-smoother than butter?


You have to realize that i am not talking "choppy" .. but we are used to a certain "fluidity" as one frame flows into the other. It is just that 4870 lacks a bit compared to the GTX280, for example.

You need something to compare to. And what i notice is not across-the-board; it is in heavy 19x12 situations - in certain games - that really strain the graphics card and YET it still manages to keep a minimum frame rate over 40 FPS.

i guess the only way to describe it is to upload a FRAPS video, but just creating it has its own sets of problems [besides the fact the video file is SO huge]

if anyone knows a better way to demonstrate or quantify relative smoothness - besides FPS charts, LMK.

 

[RussianSensation]

Apoppin how is that videocard testing coming along?

I just linked 4850 1GB vs. 4850 512mb benches.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Apoppin how is that videocard testing coming along?

I just linked 4850 1GB vs. 4850 512mb benches.

Cool :thumbsup:

I'd like to see min fps too, that's become my key concern these days

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Apoppin how is that videocard testing coming along?

I just linked 4850 1GB vs. 4850 512mb benches.

it is going good - if a little slow
.. the 1GB vRAM does not look so useful for 4850 which is a bit limited for 19x12, anyway.

i re-did so many of my benches on my other partition to confirm what i thought i was seeing with stuttering. Part 1 will be done this afternoon - e4300@3.33Ghz and much more exhaustive testing with stock e8600 [3.33Ghz] and 5 GPUs - GTX280 and 8800GTX compared to HD4870, 4870x2 and 2900xt. All i have left is a few tests left to run for my 2900xt - 3 games, a couple of hours at most.

All i have is the raw figures, so far. And a lot of 'impressions', suggestions and conclusions. Next, i am testing this evening - limitedly with HD4870/512 + HD4870x2 for crossfire X-3 on a P35 MB - and then, tomorrow night - i am rebuilding my platform with x48 MB and O/C'ing my CPU; i already got my e8600 to 4.5Ghz and was able to run programs in Vista, but i did not tweak it or test it for stability yet.

You want to see just the raw figures, so far?

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: apoppin

You want to see just the raw figures, so far?

Nah it's okay. No rush Just link us your article once you get everything sorted out.

With Crysis Warhead on Sept 16, Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway on Sept 23, Far Cry 2 on Oct 21, Call of Duty: World at War on Nov 11 we should get an even better indication of 512mb vs. 1GB argument.