More video memory = more performance? I need this question answered...

[evenmore1]

This is my first post, so please try to be nice

My friend and I were argueing over this topic. He says that certain games require a certain amount of memory and that a 64 MB video card can't run certain games. I argued that performance matters more on the type of RAM the video card has and not the amount. I want to know who is right, and your opinion on this topic.

He said he would choose an ATI Radeon X300 512MB over a x800GTO 128mb or 6600GT 128MB. I would think that because the GT and X800 have faster RAM, they should have more performance. All this confuses me...

Someone plz help and prove him (or me) wrong!!

 

[SergeC]

The answer, as often is the case for questions this vague, is not a simple "a" or "b". In different cases faster memory or more memory will help. In other words, you're both right.

 

[mezrah]

While the x800gto would be faster than the x300, it is not just because of the type of ram...although it does help. Clock speeds also influence the performance, and in that respect 600 mhz for an ATI card doesn't necessarily perform the same as 600 mhz on an Nvidia card.

Also, product numbers don't equate to higher performance either. a x1300 is not faster than an x850

There's just way to many moving parts to say more ram is better than less ram...

 

[Lonyo]

X800GTO or 6600GT will always beat an X300.

 

[evenmore1]

Actually we were debating over 6800Ultra and the 6800gs. A friend of his got the Ultra with 512 and he got the 256 gs. Which is better?

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: evenmore1
Actually we were debating over 6800Ultra and the 6800gs. A friend of his got the Ultra with 512 and he got the 256 gs. Which is better?

From a purely performance pov, the Ultra is clearly better. More pipes and more memory. It is however one of the most horribly overpriced cards in the history of Nvidia.

 

[shinzwei]

Originally posted by: evenmore1
This is my first post, so please try to be nice

My friend and I were argueing over this topic. He says that certain games require a certain amount of memory and that a 64 MB video card can't run certain games. I argued that performance matters more on the type of RAM the video card has and not the amount. I want to know who is right, and your opinion on this topic.

He said he would choose an ATI Radeon X300 512MB over a x800GTO 128mb or 6600GT 128MB. I would think that because the GT and X800 have faster RAM, they should have more performance. All this confuses me...

Someone plz help and prove him (or me) wrong!!

Let him get that X300 with 512mb of vram. Your friend is clearly the idiot between the two of you:laugh:

 

[mezrah]

Originally posted by: shinzwei

Originally posted by: evenmore1
This is my first post, so please try to be nice

My friend and I were argueing over this topic. He says that certain games require a certain amount of memory and that a 64 MB video card can't run certain games. I argued that performance matters more on the type of RAM the video card has and not the amount. I want to know who is right, and your opinion on this topic.

He said he would choose an ATI Radeon X300 512MB over a x800GTO 128mb or 6600GT 128MB. I would think that because the GT and X800 have faster RAM, they should have more performance. All this confuses me...

Someone plz help and prove him (or me) wrong!!

Let him get that X300 with 512mb of vram. Your friend is clearly the idiot between the two of you:laugh:

QFT

 

[pkme2]

More video RAM is good, but video cards are like cars. You can get a souped-up VW or a street Ferrari. It all depends on your computer system. You wouldn't want to try to ram a Hemi into a Yugo. Check out what the other people are building and outfitting their gaming computers on AT. If you want performance, go with the x800GTO or 6600GT. It all depends on what results you're seeking.

 

[Elfear]

Ram needs scale with the processing power of the gpu core. Someone using a 256MB FX5200 will never need that amount of ram and would probably never see any difference over a 128MB FX5200. Part of the reason is that at the resolutions and detail settings required to take advantage of the extra ram, both cards would fall on their faces. If you take a high-end card though, like the X1900XTX and suppose it had two versions (128MB and 256MB) you'd probably see a big difference in performance between the two because the X1900XTX will be used at much higher resolutions and detail settings than an FX5200.

That doesn't quite answer your argument over memory speed vs. memory size but maybe it helps a little.

 

[Cawchy87]

It's like putting a spoiler on a civic. It won't make you go faster, but thousands of idiots are willing to pay more for it.

 

[AthlonAlien]

Originally posted by: evenmore1
Actually we were debating over 6800Ultra and the 6800gs. A friend of his got the Ultra with 512 and he got the 256 gs. Which is better?

The standard 6800 Ultra (256MB) outperforms the 6800GS... an Ultra with 512MB is just icing on the cake

BTW, a 6800 GT (256MB) also tops the 6800 GS.

-LaTeR

 

[evenmore1]

I see, thanks for the input guys!

If I get a new video card, should I get a 512 MB X1600 pro or a 128 MB X800 or a GeForce 6800? They seem to be about the same prices on Newegg

 

[aka1nas]

Normally, I would say that VRAM is not something to worry about with graphics cards. Recently I have played a few games where my 128MB 6800nu video card was getting horrible performance compared to people with far inferior cards that had more VRAM. Most games don't use up anywhere near the RAM of a midrange or sometimes even budget card unless FSAA is being used, in which case other attributes such as fill rate and memory bandwith often become the limiting factor first. If I were buying a card today, I would probably go for a card with 256MB onboard. 512 is still overkill and overpriced.

 

[videopho]

As a general rule of thumb, the more rams the better. Regardless, system ram or gddr rams. With window Vista lurking, system memory requires at least 2gb to be sufficient. ATI x1900 lines already comes with 512mb in order to prepare for the next gen games. Nvidia is expeted to follow suite soon with their new G71 line-up, also in 512mb gddr3.
"One never has enough ram". Yes you can quote on that.

 

[SpeedZealot369]

although ram is needed, it's just one of the many parts a the vga card.
So although more ram would mean more performance, it's not the only variable. On a card like the x300, 512mb would prob be slower then the 128mb...

 

[xtknight]

The answer is, "it depends", so you both lost the argument. (Or you both won if you're an optimist.)

ATI Radeon X300 512MB over a x800GTO 128mb or 6600GT 128MB

First of all, the X800GTO has other differences from the X300 than just memory, so you can not compare the two. But the X800GTO would beat either of those performance-wise. The X300 would be stomped, and the 6600GT would perform sub par in comparison.

 

[OvErHeAtInG]

Originally posted by: Cawchy87
It's like putting a spoiler on a civic. It won't make you go faster, but thousands of idiots are willing to pay more for it.

The "it" you're referring to, being 512MB on an X300? Agreed. People like the OP's friend are the sole reason the X300 512MB exists (and I was completely unaware that it even existed).

"Hey I have a five HUNDRED MEG video card!! Huh huh!!"

Edit: I know that's a little mean but non-techies bragging about their video cards get on my nerves

I also vote X800 GTO, out of those three. 6600GT/6800 second choice. X1600 Pro has no use for 512MB. And IMO the 3 things currently affecting videogame performance in order are
1) power of the core - how many pixel pipes and what MHz? Even this gets more complicated depending on the brand/line but the speed and features of the core is the most important thing to performace.
2) speed of RAM
3) amount of RAM. This is very rarely an issue because, if a card is capable of using more than 128MB frame buffer, then the manufacturer will typically include 256 MB on the board. Your friend's 512 MB 6800 Ultra is likely never going to see an improvement over a 256 MB Ultra, maybe in newer games at really high settings, but then just a little bit.

Anything I forgot?

Edit 2 : so in response to your poll: neither, the core is more important than either.

 

[Munky]

There's a certain amount of video memory required to play a certain game at certain settings. For example, if you run games like SS2 or COD2 at 1600x1200 with AA and AF, then 512mb video mem is required for optimal performance. Even if you had a x1900xtx, but it only had 128mb of video mem, the performance would degrade significantly. Once you have enough vram, faster ram can increase performance, but it will not make up for the difference if you dont have enough vram.

On the other hand, a card like the x300 is limited by the slow gpu, and if you play any game at settings that require 256mb or 512mb, the performance will suffer from the slow gpu, regardless of how much vram you actually have, and having faster vram will not make up for the slow gpu either.

 

[evenmore1]

Sorry guys. It was actually a 512 MB X1300. Does that change any opinions?

I knew there was more to it than just memory+memory speed.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: evenmore1
Sorry guys. It was actually a 512 MB X1300. Does that change any opinions?

I knew there was more to it than just memory+memory speed.

lol, not really. The X1300 is bad too.

 

[JAG87]

ok, when you are buying a video card you go by this list:

1) what GPU it has
2) what the clock of GPU and RAM are
3) how much RAM it has

as you can see, the amount of ram is the last thing I consider, simply because a good GPU will never be under-equipped with ram. on the other hand, a crappy GPU will have over-equipped versions to attract turkeys like your friend.

an X300 or X1300 with 512 MB will stumble to keep up with any X800 card. X300 and X1300 have 4 pipelines, while the cheapest X800 has 8 pipelines. the GTO in particular has 12, and an X800 XT has 16. total slaughter.

 

[ItSells]

Originally posted by: evenmore1
This is my first post, so please try to be nice

My friend and I were argueing over this topic. He says that certain games require a certain amount of memory and that a 64 MB video card can't run certain games. I argued that performance matters more on the type of RAM the video card has and not the amount. I want to know who is right, and your opinion on this topic.

He said he would choose an ATI Radeon X300 512MB over a x800GTO 128mb or 6600GT 128MB. I would think that because the GT and X800 have faster RAM, they should have more performance. All this confuses me...

Someone plz help and prove him (or me) wrong!!

yeb the GTX 512mb could own x1900 xt 256mb not...

 

[aznrice54]

Originally posted by: AthlonAlien

The standard 6800 Ultra (256MB) outperforms the 6800GS... an Ultra with 512MB is just icing on the cake

BTW, a 6800 GT (256MB) also tops the 6800 GS.

-LaTeR

Huh? I thought the GS offered comparable performance to the GT (especially when overclocked).

 

[evenmore1]

I dunno...my dads not going to let me build/purchase a new computer till I go to college. Imagine all the great stuff there will be in 1.5 years!