It's much more likely that the 512MB 4870 has problems in FC2 due to driver issues than it does due to memory problems. Why does Crysis have none of the problems that FC2 does?
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
chizow I think you are missing the point,the fact is casual gamer does not need 1GB video card unless he games at high res with AA/AF etc and can afford it,how many gamers actually own 1GB card?..you can bet they are in the minority compared to 512mb and below,you can always get better ie more main ram,faster cpu,SLI,Quad etc but you have to decide on do you the buyer(in this case pectin) really need 1GB at this point,I know I don't and I game probably more then you.
I'm not saying buy this or that,what I'm saying is there is a market for both 512mb and 1GB cards depending on your personal needs and gaming habits like I have previously stated.
As to 1GB card benchmarks ,I have seen a lot(both showing improvements and also none) however nobody is arguing there is a point where 1GB cards do benefit in certain games and resolution , 512mb is still fine for a lot of gamers,as to what he buys thats down to him.
Also consider that $30--$40 he saves might be better spent on more system ram(obviously it depends on what his PC/OS specs are) for video encoding.
What are you basing that on? Reviews alone? I've already linked to several reviews that show the 1GB is never worst than the 512MB, and often much better even at resolutions lower than 1920. And that's using straight average FPS figures, which isn't going to fully reflect the difference in gaming experience when lack of VRAM causes a hitch or stutter; any slight drop in FPS is lost in a sea of numbers and obscured in an average.
Only 6 FPS Difference.....but clearly a very different gaming experience.
It may very well be a driver issue, but it certainly seems the problem is exacerbated in cards with less VRAM:
- FC2 blog
The stuttering issue people have pointed out with AMD hardware is not an issue with the 1GB part in our experience. The rest of the line up suffers greatly from random hitches that aren't so much stuttering in our tests as they are temporary slow downs.
Crysis does have the same problems even at lower resolutions with higher quality texture settings. Check the PCGH linked review. If you want to use add-ons like Rygel's texture mods, more VRAM is even more important (there's SS of nearly 1GB used with his mod enabled).
Actually none of that matters. What does matter is that the 1GB version is provably better, to the point that anyone looking in this price range shouldn't consider a card with only 512MB.
Right now the 512MB market is going to be the people who listen to poor advice from people like you and either buy them new or buy them 2nd hand from all the people trying to unload them on FS/FT or Ebay.
This reminds me a lot of the 320MB vs 640MB G80 GTS. Those 320MB cards ran great at an awesome price. Until a few new games came out and made them totally irrelevant.
So does it make more sense to spend a little more now and reap those proven benefits? Or does it make more sense to learn the hard way and deal with trying to unload a card that has depreciated even more a few months down the line? Try and answer honestly here. If you were buying today, would you buy the 512MB or pay a bit more for the 1GB version?
He does this all the time. According to his "theory", a 10GB card would be 10x better than a 1GB card.
There is nothing wrong with either 512MB cards or 1GB cards. Each one has its proper market. 1GB for the 1920x1200 and up market, 512MB for the 1920x1200 and lower market. 1920x1200 seems to be the dividing point as there are a couple of titles/option configurations that do run out of physical memory. But the majority seem to run on 512MB just fine.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
"Majority" may be the key word indeed. Majority meaning "most". Not "all".
I think Chizow's point was in the right place. Is it worth spending a little extra for the extra memory for a little extra buffer protection? I think that would be a resounding "Yes".
And Creig, did you even understand Chizow's "theory"? Because that 10GB is 10x better than 1GB seems to be all you.
No it doesn't. I played the entire game all the way through on my 512MB 4870 and did not even once encounter the studdering issues that plague Farcry 2.
SolMiester
Diamond Member
- Dec 19, 2004
- 5,330
- 17
- 76
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Originally posted by: Wreckage
How am I spreading FUD by quoting an article YOU linked?
You can check any of the several new reviews using the 180 drivers. They all give the edge to the 260.
http://www.firingsquad.com/har..._gtx_260_black_review/
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=668
The fud is saying that a GTX260 is better then a 4870 when they are clearly pretty well equal... if we're talking about the 216 core. The article says that the EVGA GTX260 216 superclocked is better then a stock 4870, not what you said which was "A GTX 260 is better than a 4870". And you could argue with their opinion if you wanted as they trade blows, but the point here is that they are talking about a perticular overclocked from the factory 216 core card vs. your blanket statement that the GTX260 is just better.
Looks to me in the quoted link, that not only the 216 OC & black edition, but the std 260 beat the radeons in all but a couple of benchies, even if by a margin, therefore the blanket statement would be correct?
Crysis and Far Cry 2 use different rendering engines. Crysis uses CryEngine 2 developed by Crytek. Far Cry 2 uses the Dunia engine developed from scratch by Ubisoft Montreal.
Apparently Mem and I understood it better than you did. I'll explain it so that you can, too.
If you are running at a resolution that would never use more than 512MB of video memory (1680x1050 and lower), of what possible use would it be to spend the additional money to purchase a 1GB card? Does your 'resounding Yes' mean that somebody running 1280x1024 should skip a 512MB card and go straight for a 1GB card simply because it has more vram?
You have to look at each person's needs in order to be able to give them intelligent advice regarding possible purchases.
Fallen Kell
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 6,234
- 552
- 126
Does it really matter? Are there any factory ATI overclocked cards that have full warranty? If not, then it isn't apples/oranges, it is factory stock retail product vs factory stock retail product.
SolMiester
Diamond Member
- Dec 19, 2004
- 5,330
- 17
- 76
Leyawiin
Diamond Member
- Nov 11, 2008
- 3,204
- 52
- 91
Well, not exactly a stock HD 4870. The 1GB model is pretty well known for being a decent amount faster than the 512 MB is most resolutions. Pairing it against a GTX 260 (216) OC is a pretty fair comparison. Close to the same performance, same price point.
It looks like the O.P. bowed out of the thread before we got his other specs - CPU and resolution played. Whether the GTX 260 is worth the extra over the HD 4850 is pretty much dependent on those.
Rofl, does what all the time? Support my statements with readily available benchmarks and reviews? Yep. This allows me to say the 1GB is always better than the 512MB version of the 4870, so I don't have to use such touch-feely terms like "seems like" and "mostly okay".
And as I linked earlier, there's benefit to more VRAM at resolutions lower than 1920. 1280 in Oblivion, 1680 in STALKER, 1680 in GRiD, 1680 in Crysis, 1680 in UT3.
Unfortunately 1280 and 1680 are left off most reviews now for parts in this price and performance range, otherwise I'm sure we'd see more examples that fall in your artificially generated $200+ video card market for resolutions 1680 and lower ONLY. lol.
There's a big difference between saying something benefits from 1GB and saying that a 512MB card is crippled in today's games.
It is crippled compared to parts with more VRAM though, provided the game can take advantage of it. And I've clearly demonstrated today's games can, even at low resolutions. This isn't going to get better, only worst for the 512MB version as games continue to use bigger and better looking textures.
Again, you have to look at the resolution being used. The higher the resolution, the more vram you typically need. A 512MB card is going to remain useful longer at 1680x1050 than at 1920x1200. I can't see 1440x900 or lower needing more than 512MB vram for a long time to come.
As it stands right now, I would recommend a 512MB for 1680x1050 and below, a 1GB card for 1920x1200 and above. Current 512MB cards can run most games at 1920x1200 without experiencing slowdowns related to a lack of memory so this resolution is kind of a tossup. As times goes on, I'm sure more and more games will require 1GB at 1920x1200 and 512MB will be increasingly unable to handle this resolution.
But vram isn't everything. By the time current 512MB cards are unable to handle the majority of new games at 1920x1200, I don't doubt that the GPU on them will be too slow to handle those games anyhow. So there's really not much point in purchasing a 1GB card unless you need to run 1920x1200 or higher with current games.
Spike
Diamond Member
- Aug 27, 2001
- 6,770
- 1
- 81
Sorry about the whole ram issue, I did not mean to help derail the thread on that topic. I probably should have explained my position better in that for me, the 512mb 4870 has worked great. Yes, there is zero doubt that the 1GB version is better and had it been available at the time for only a few $ more it would have been a no-brainer. Sadly it was not out, or at least not very available, when I bought the 512mb part so it was not really even an option. Had it been, say, $50 more I probably would have stuck with the 512 since it works great at my res but any less and I would have seriously looked at the 1GB. The GTX 260 was not even an option at the time due to the very high price though within a few weeks of my purchase they finally hit below $300.
Basically if there is not a huge price difference go with the 1GB all the way, even if you game at 800x600 it will be the better value eventually. If the price difference is greater then it becomes a question of budget and need. Sure, 1GB would be nice but if that extra $50 would buy you that quad core instead of the dual or you can add that extra 4GB of ram those might be more of a benefit to you, especially at a "low" res of 1680. In this instance I was just trying to say that in my case, the 512mb part has allowed me to play every game I have tried just about maxed out with no problems at all.
As for the topic at hand yes, the GTX260 is alot better than the 4850 while the 4850 is better (maybe even alot better?) than the 9800GTX but they all have different price points. If the 260 is within $50 of the 4850 (yes, I love to use the $50 threshhold) I would take a serious look at the 260, my budget, and what games I play. I would most likely get the 260 just due to the sheer power advantage. If the price difference was more like the reported $70 then it becomes a different question. Sure, everyone wants the best performance possible but if that was the only consideration we would all have tri-SLI GTX 280 cards in our system.
Basically if there is not a huge price difference go with the 1GB all the way, even if you game at 800x600 it will be the better value eventually. If the price difference is greater then it becomes a question of budget and need. Sure, 1GB would be nice but if that extra $50 would buy you that quad core instead of the dual or you can add that extra 4GB of ram those might be more of a benefit to you, especially at a "low" res of 1680. In this instance I was just trying to say that in my case, the 512mb part has allowed me to play every game I have tried just about maxed out with no problems at all.
As for the topic at hand yes, the GTX260 is alot better than the 4850 while the 4850 is better (maybe even alot better?) than the 9800GTX but they all have different price points. If the 260 is within $50 of the 4850 (yes, I love to use the $50 threshhold) I would take a serious look at the 260, my budget, and what games I play. I would most likely get the 260 just due to the sheer power advantage. If the price difference was more like the reported $70 then it becomes a different question. Sure, everyone wants the best performance possible but if that was the only consideration we would all have tri-SLI GTX 280 cards in our system.
bryanW1995
Lifer
- May 22, 2007
- 11,144
- 32
- 91
quick search of newegg shows an asus 4870 with glaciator heatsink for $195 AR shipped. The cheapest gtx 260 I saw was around $220 shipped.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
Cheapest I see is this one:
4870 512 199.99 AR
Cheapest 4870 1GB I see is:
4870 1GB 244.99 AR
Cheapest GTX260 Core 192 I see is:
GTX260 Core 192 204.99 AR
Cheapest GTX260 Core 216 I see is:
GTX260 Core 216 229.99 AR
Prices are changing every day. Look for the 4870 prices (both versions) to drop again.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter