radeon 8500 w/64mb vs. 128mb

[Torghn]

Does anyone know if the clock speeds on the radeon 8500's w/ 128mb is higher than the ones with 64mb?
I know they increased the clock speeds when they increased the ram on the original Radeons.

 

[Jalidi]

Nope, as far as I know they're both clocked at 275/275 if you go for retail... check out Tom's Hardware site, he did an article the other day, comparing the advantages of having 64 megs or 128 megs on your video card. His conclusion? It doesn't help performance not even one whittle and it's only useful if you're going to be playing games at 1600x1200 and 4x FSAA, in which case it'll actually use up all the RAM---since today's GPUs are kind of weak at extremely high resolutions, you're better off saving your money.

 

[AmdInside]

I think it won't help NVIDIA cards because NVIDIA uses a more effecient AA (multi-sampling) vs. ATI which uses a less memory effectient AA (super-sampling).

 

[AA0]

It really doesn't matter though, because at 4x the speed is really bad, and you really won't be using it.

 

[Hypernikes]

Who knows, the 4xAA 1600x1200 speed may be decent on geforce4 128mb cards? That probably won't be the case... geforce3 ti200 128mb cards show 20fps with those settings... so even if geforce4 128mb cards make a 10-20fps improvement it's still wouldn't be a setting I would play my games with. I only play with settings that give an average fps of 60.

 

[Rand]

<< Who knows, the 4xAA 1600x1200 speed may be decent on geforce4 128mb cards? >>




Judging by the Chip Online GF4 benchmarks, even the fastest GF4 in the Ti4600 is barely doing 60FPS at 1600x1200x32bpp w/Qunicunx AA, if it can only do that with Quincunx then it'd probably hit close to 30FPS with 4X FSAA..... and this on Quake 3 which is what 2 years old now?!
If it can manage roughly 30FPS w/4X FSAA in 1600x1200 on a game that old, then there is no way in hell it's going to hit playable frame rates in modern games at 1600x1200x32bpp w/4X FSAA.

 

[chickendinner]

ATI is the devil