• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

no love for the 8800gt 256mb?

yes it is an excellent price/performance card...
But it will NOT be available for some time yet. The card was technically released... but it is basically the same core as the 512MB version but will less ram. A manufacturer like MSI or Asus or whatever buys the chips, and then they can use the same exact chip to manufactur either a 256MB or a 512MB version... There is absolutely no reason for them to make a lower margin 256 version when the 512MB versions are all sold out immediately... when the feeding frenzy subsides then manufacturers will start producing those 256MB versions.
 
I read a benchmark where modern games use over 300mb of VRAM at 1280x1024 max settings. I recall Call of Duty 4 using near 400mb. I'll post a link if I ever find it again. I personally would recommend 512mb+ for playing modern games at high to max settings and at higher resolutions.

Ok I just googled it and found the link 😀

http://www.yougamers.com/artic...ch_do_you_really_need/
 
read this: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3151&p=7

specifically:

The Radeon HD 3850 comes close in performance to the 2900 XT, especially at lower resolutions, but at ultra high resolutions it delivers only about 80% of the performance of its older brother.

the "lower resolutions" were 97.9 % of 2900xt at 1280x1024 and 93.2% at 1600x1200.

In general you are correct about recommending more vram, just remember that vram is just one piece of the puzzle. How many people would prefer an 8800gts 640 to an 8800gts 512? what about a 512mb x1950xtx to a 256mb 3850?

 
i look at as the same relationship the g80 core 8800GTS 640/320 had.
the 640 was the "just under" GTX performance card, but everyone found out that the 320 did roughly the same performance at a much lower price point. Unless you were running 1920x1200 or greater resolutions, the 320 was just as good as the 640. The 8800GT outperforms the old GTS, so even with half as much ram as the 512 it should still be in the ballpark.
 
There are games that don't even let you choose the highest settings if you don't have at least 512 megs of Vram, independent of the resolution used, like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 1 and 2. You could not set textures on high in 256 video cards, no matter how fast they were. In my opinion the today's standard for video ram is 512 , but when you are on a budget you could buy a fast 256 card like the 3850, but in some games you will have to make some quality compromises. I believe that it does worth spending a couple of dollars more on the 512 version.
 
Certainly seems like a good card, but how much cheaper can it be? May be just as well to get one of those regular gt's that are on sale at Dell. If you live in the us that is. New games will likely need more ram.
 
yeah, this card should be very nice if it's ever released. obviously nvidia is having some problems right now, which is too bad b/c 8800gt is a monster upgrade in the price/performance category. At least it will be if it ever gets down to $200 as nvidia predicted... even $250 non-sale price at reputable sites would be great.
 
nvidia isn't having problems... they are manufacturing them full tilt...there is no supply because last gen cards didnt have any middle range cards... only extremely overpriced high end and extremely underpowered low end priced like mid end.. most pople have waited 2 years for this upgrade so there is far too much demand. It will be met soon enough though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top