I wonder if Anand still thinks 128MB is better than 64MB for the 4200.

[Piano Man]

Because, after looking at his GPU shootout for UT3, it looks like the 64MB card is holding its own, plus you know it will overclock more with the 3.5ns, and cost a couple bucks less. Or is UT3 the exception?

Here are the 1600*1200 benchies where one would think the extra 64Megs might come in handy. Not so.

Benchmark 1
Benchmark 2


I want to know what Anand thinks about the results, and if he would now recommend the 4200 with 64MB. So what do you guys think?

 

[TJ69]

The 64MB has faster ram, thus better performance in some games. The 128MB was suggested, because the extra ram will dramatically improve performance in games with larger texture maps and greater details. The difference in games with smaller texture maps is a mere 1-3fps higher for the 64MB models. But in games where memory is in demand, the difference is high as 17fps in favor of the 128MB models. Even with overclocking, this gap remains consistent.

As for overclocking, the 64MB do overclock slighter higher. But the extra speed did not close the gap in high texture games. Also, the Visiontek 128MB overclocked to 600mhz, which is very competitive to the highest speeds reached by 64MB models (600-610mhz).

More details and bigger texture maps are where games are always heading. The extra memory will serve you well down the road. But if you don't plan on keeping this card very long or just plan to use it for your current collection, the 64MB may suit you just fine.

Personally, I went with the 128MB Visiontek that was posted in Hot Deals.

 

[BFG10K]

(1) That's only one game with one benchmark. Look at the other games (RTCW, JK2 etc) available today.
(2) Look at the Radeon 128 MB compared to the Radeon 64 MB on the same graphs.
(3) When the 64 MB version does win it's not by much. OTOH when the 64 MB card will get hit by texture swaps the difference will be massive as the 128 MB card will be much faster.

 

[Goi]

He was talking about the GeForce4 Ti4200 rather than cards with 64MB or 128MB memory configurations in general. In the GeForce4 Ti4200's case, its kind of an unfair comparison and should not be used as a case for 64MB vs 128MB arguments coz the memory speeds are different. You trade speed for capacity, and in certain cases one will win, but in other cases the other will be better. If they were both the same speed memory, the tables will probably turn in favor of the 128MB version.

 

[Actaeon]

Goi does have a good point.

But either way, both cards will last you till Doom3 (yes, no one brought it up, but its a good point), though the 128MB version SHOULD be better at it, you could only imagine the bandwidth and memory taken up by those kinds of textures.

 

[kami]

If you want to play Doom3 with your Ti4200 (especially with the better texture detail) you better go for the 128MB one.

 

[mee987]

in the latest ti4200 roundup anand also showed that every 128mb card tested was able to overclock above the stock 64mb speed.

 

[mee987]

also look here. look at the JK2 scores, the 128mb scores higher because this game uses larger texture sizes. tell me if im way off here, but i expect upcoming games to use larger and larger texture sizes.

 

[niggles]

I'd agree that texture's are what should be looked at here.

...Also, didn't JKII use vertex shaders? wouldn't this require more memory?

 

[merlocka]

also look here. look at the JK2 scores, the

I don't put much faith in those numbers... the 1280x results show about a 25% lead with 128MB card where the 1600x show only about a 4% improvement. I would think it should be reversed? Or perhaps there is just something goofy going on with the 128MB card at 1600x.

 

[niggles]

I'm sure I'm misssing something here but why is it goofy? It's closing the gap because the resolution is higher. Why shouldn't it do that?

 

[AnAndAustin]

Just to stick my bit in here.

All 64MB 4200 has over 128MB 4200 is higher default clocks and a tiny price advantage. When it comes to o/c it is the RAM used, not the amount, that dictates the likely attainable o/c and most 4200 cards REGARDLESS of RAM size use 4.0ns.

For 4200 cards:
5.0ns gets to 480mhz
4.0ns gets to 550mhz
3.6ns gets to 600mhz
3.3ns gets to 600mhz

Don't be concerned with fancy HSF or RAM HS as they do next to nothing, it is the RAM rating that is most vital. But bear in mind that if you pay extra to get the faster RAM you may be very close to entry level 4400 cards which would be a far better buy. In all cases the above are estimates only based on average o/c attained and are NOT guaranteed!

64MB are still great buys, faster than the top-of-the-range cards 6 months ago (GF3TI500 & Radeon8500) most of which 'only' came with 64MB anyway. 64MB 4200 are great, but they are not superior nor more o/c than 128MB 4200 cards UNLESS they happen to use faster rated RAM which the 128MB can do just as easily.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Here's the 2 most telling links I've come across in the 4200 64MB vs 128MB debate. Of course things are slightly diff than other 64MB vs 128MB debates due to the use of RAM speeds ranging from 4.0ns to 3.3ns and diff default speeds, but it is still of interest to anybody with a 64MB card.

AnAndTech

Firing Squad

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

The games due out over the next 12 months will be making use of larger textures and taking advantage of 128MB gfx RAM. Not only that but when you come to sell your 4200 on, 128MB will be the standard and as such any 64MB card will be significantly harder to sell. Saving that tiny bit of cash now could cause you more problems and headaches sooner than you think.

There is no need at all for any current Radeon8500 or GF3 owners with 64MB to worry about upgrading, for them the new ATI & nVidia cards are worth the wait, but for anyone looking for a new card that will age as well as possible, the 4200 128MB is the clear winner. IMHO anyway.

 

[AnAndAustin]

I think I've already posted these links on another thread but here they are anyway, useful for anybody who never caught them.

Tech Report

Toms HW

AnAndTech

Firing Squad

If you NEVER plan to o/c the 64MB card is probably the better buy with it's default of 250/500 as 250/444 is a bit crippling. Even at default clocks though the 64MB has only a 2-3% advantage when you average out all of the benchmarks of the above links and sites. When you take o/c in to account it comes down to price differences, ideally a 128MB 4200 with 3.6ns RAM is best, 64MB with 3.6ns next, 128MB with 4.0ns and finally 64MB with 4.0ns. However if you plan to keep your card for a year or more then I'd suggest 128MB regardless of RAM speed. A good point to remember is that any 4200 at default clocks still beats a GF3TI500 and Radeon8500 so in any configuration it's still a great buy.

 

[BFG10K]

In the GeForce4 Ti4200's case, its kind of an unfair comparison and should not be used as a case for 64MB vs 128MB arguments coz the memory speeds are different.

I agree but I'll also point out that 128 MB 250/250 Radeon 8500 LEs still often beat 64 MB 275/275 Radeon 8500s, even with the slower memory.

The extra memory makes a large difference even in today's games.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Those ATI Radeon8500LE cards were and still are very sweet.

If only ATI could do something about the bizarre pricing outside the US & Canada. I only had about 2 months where it was worth the 'rest of the world' choosing it. It's actually cheaper to get a GF3 than a Radeon7500 and a GF4TI4200 than a Radeon8500 which is still at GF4TI4400 prices! It isn't even much better if you choose a far poorer non-ATI Radeon. Come on ATI, AMD wouldn't have got very far with the Athlon by selling it at a price above that of the equivilent P4!

 

[mee987]

...4.0ns gets to 550mhz....

nice speculation, but not very accurate.

correct me if im wrong, but higher resolutions dont benefit from extra video memory any more than low resolutions do they? the memory stores textures, and the texture sizes dont go up when your res goes up.

 

[Confused]

Originally posted by: AnAndAustin<br If only ATI could do something about the bizarre pricing outside the US & Canada. I only had about 2 months where it was worth the 'rest of the world' choosing it. It's actually cheaper to get a GF3 than a Radeon7500 and a GF4TI4200 than a Radeon8500 which is still at GF4TI4400 prices! It isn't even much better if you choose a far poorer non-ATI Radeon. Come on ATI, AMD wouldn't have got very far with the Athlon by selling it at a price above that of the equivilent P4!

I agree totally here. I'm just looking on Dabs.com and the pricing is so annoying Here you see at the top the cheapest Ti4200, and, well, u can see the rest of the story by looking at the rest of the page and also the next page

I'm thinking about getting stuff from America and having it shipped to the UK, that will probably be cheaper in the end, esp with the 8500 @ $100 (~£65), and the Ti4200 @ $150 (~£100) on sale in the US there is a saving there, probably even with the added cost of shipping!

The UK sucks for computer stuff


Confused

 

[AnAndAustin]

Confused, surely you're used to getting ripped off for stuff in the UK? I know I am, 17.5% VAT is a lot, even with the NHS factored in. £15 ($21) for a music CD, £8,000 ($11,000) for a tiny little Nissan Micra or that type of car ... surely you're used to it by now.

I've considered buying from the US before, but VERY few places in the US seem willing to ship to the UK, and even then there's bigger head-aches with returns as well as the TAXES and FEES which can be applicable. Also I was unsure of how US$ would effect my Credit Card, do I get charged an extra fee or just standard conversion £ - $? Then there's the problem of different US standards and power regulation, although it shouldn't be a problem for most kit.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Check out the links given mee987, faster RAM equals more bandwidth which means more data can be processed and sent, yielding it's best results in higher resolutions. The days of worrying about how much RAM you needed to attain a given resolution pretty much ended when gfx cards hit 4MB, of course 1600x1200 will use up more memory than 1024x768, especially when you consider 32bit of information per pixel, but the situation gets even more complex the deeper you delve with AA and filtering techniques coming in to play. The 64MB at 250/500 is faster in pretty much all cases IIRC than the 128MB at 250/444 ESPECIALLY when applying AA. So basicly you want plenty of RAM but it is of fundamental importance that it runs quickly too.

Although 4.0ns gfx RAM should technically get up to only 500mhz, for some reason 4200 cards surpass these technical limits, be it down to design or better RAM yields. This is why it is actually possible for manus to implement 5.0ns RAM in to 128MB 4200 cards but thank goodness I haven't seen any of that yet! In essence, I would suggest to anybody looking for a 4200 card to see what the prices and their budget are like. 128MB is a distinct advantage in any new card, and is VERY likely to become VERY significant over the next 6 months. I'd pay the extra for 128MB 4.0ns over 64MB 4.0ns, but then it would come down to the prices of 3.6ns 4200 cards as to whether they'd be worth it. It's always best to keep a watchful eye on exactly how much you're spending because you may find you're spending a lot extra simply to gain a few extra % perf, or indeed that a 4400 would actually be within your budget. Always rem it depends a lot upon where you live, US seem to have it best in both prices and availibility, but it all varies quite dramaticly from country to country.