RAM on the Video Card -- how much needed?

[WhipperSnapper]

What is the minimum amount of RAM that you'd want/need if you were buying a video card today? Obviously, you need at least 256 MB. Is it worthwhile to spend more money to get a card with more RAM? Would it be worth it to spend $20 more to get 512 instead of 256 (for, say, a x1950 Pro or x1950 XT)?

Does the extra 64 MB on the 8800 GTS's really do anything for those cards? (How the heck did they pick 320 MB? Why not 384 or 512?)

 

[JPB]

I would say, a person would need a 512 mb card for great gaming. However a 256 mb card would be proficient. It is better to have more memory, than not enough, or just enough.

And I could be wrong, but I think they went with 320 mb on the GTS card because it is exactly half ( had to disable / cut down something for lower price version...and the memory was the candidate ) of the 640 mb card. And they didnt want to cut down any other specs.

And what do you mean by the extra 64 mb on the GTS ?

 

[BenchZowner]

No less than 320MB ( that applies to cards worth having that amount of memory, not a X800GTO or a 6600GT ) if you want to play the new games with the settings at least at high.

If you're gaming over 1280x1024 with at least 4xAA 8xAF, then better get a card with 512/768 RAM ( 1GB is overkill atm ).
For example the 8800GTS 320MB sticks together with the 640MB version at frequencies up to 1280x1024.
Move on to 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 and see the new gap between them

 

[pcslookout]

I play games at 1680x1050, high details on everything, 4xAA and 16xAF just fine with very smooth frame rates on a Geforce 8800 GTS 320 MB

Bioshock alone proves you don't need 512 to 768 MB of ram for the latest and greatest DX10 games but Crysis will really bring the test even more forward to see how it pans it!

 

[MarcVenice]

pcslookout is right. The gap between the 8800gts 320mb and the 8800gts 640mb actually doesn't become apparent even at resolutions as high as 1920*1200. The 320mb is because of the 320bit memory bus, not because it is half of the 640mb version

 

[BenchZowner]

Depends on the game, and the resolution and AA/AF settings.
Nobody said that you can't play a game at 1600x1200 with a 320MB 8800GTS...but some games with settings at full & 4xAA/8xAF at 1680x1050...

Anyways...you really need to visit the front page sometimes

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2926&p=1

 

[pcslookout]

I play Oblivion at 1680x1050 with all details on high 4x AA and 16 AF very smoothly even outside.

 

[BenchZowner]

Originally posted by: pcslookout
I play Oblivion at 1680x1050 with all details on high 4x AA and 16 AF very smoothly even outside.

+ Textures mods and the pack ( don't remember how it's called, i'm not a Oblivion fan )

But anyways, that doesn't mean that someone else with a 640MB card won't get better framerates than you.

Stuff can get worse ( or even impossible to be run ) on more demanding games ( CoH for example )

 

[MarcVenice]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...8-roundup_9.html#sect1

Enjoy, I know it ain't showing Oblivion, but it does show quite a few games. Now ask yourself the question, what games do I play, and do I REALLY REALLY need the extra ram or will I settle for a little less eyecandy in SOME games compared to the 320mb version.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: BenchZowner

Originally posted by: pcslookout
I play Oblivion at 1680x1050 with all details on high 4x AA and 16 AF very smoothly even outside.

+ Textures mods and the pack ( don't remember how it's called, i'm not a Oblivion fan )

But anyways, that doesn't mean that someone else with a 640MB card won't get better framerates than you.

Stuff can get worse ( or even impossible to be run ) on more demanding games ( CoH for example )

CoH with DX10 sure but its fine in DX9.

 

[BenchZowner]

DirectX 9 mode tests...

Resolution - AA/AF - Card - Average FPS
1680x1050 - 2xAA/4xAF - 8800GTX - 90.1fps
1680x1050 - 2xAA/4xAF - 8800GTS 320MB - 48.9fps

~49fps average framerate...doesn't feel comfortable to me

 

[dandragonrage]

8800GTX vs GTS 320 is not a valid comparison.

 

[BenchZowner]

What I was showcasing is that the 8800GTS 320MB failed to deliver playable framerates at 1680x1050 2xAA/4xAF in CoH...wasn't comparing it with the GTX.
At the same settings the 8800GTS 640MB would deliver around 59fps

 

[MarcVenice]

Woops

 

[BenchZowner]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
More bullshit, 49fps is very playable, especially in an RTS. When we are talking fast paced shooters i'd still say 50fps is very playable.

And what do you mean, doesn't feel comfortable to me? I guess that's why your site isn't working, because it couldn't pay for itself through ads because it sucked?

yeah, 49fps average, with 31fps minimum is...a very enjoyable gameplay...

As for your rather insulting comment about my site...it's not worth answering.
I'm not going to take your shit.

 

[pcslookout]

Why do some games like Half life 2, you can run with 4x AA and 16x AF just fine on a Geforce 8800 GTS 320 or 640 with very playable frame rates but other games like CoH with the same settings not able to get playable frame rates on these same video cards? Even if you don't use DX10 for CoH.

 

[BenchZowner]

Not every single game uses the same texture size, compression, obstacle count, etc etc.
It's not like comparing a green balloon to a red balloon.

 

[pcslookout]

I dare you to try Rainbow Vegas on a GTX at 1680x1050 with all details on high (I mean all not just some), 4x AA and 16 AF. I bet you won't be able to get playable frame rates! See thats the problem why can't all games have a standard of the same performence hit when AA and AF is enabled or some universal performence hit?

It doesn't mean its the video card that can't do it. The problem could easily be the game.

 

[MarcVenice]

It's irrelevant if it's the game or not, you can't change the game, you can buy a better videocard.

@benchowner, sorry for that, that was a little harsh.

We're talking 1680*1050 with 4xaa and 2af, and everything else on high. If 31fps is the absolute lowest it should still be playable, as long as there are no drops below 20fps it's fine. And if you can't endure it, you could put 1 or 2 things at medium, have nearly the same IQ, and still be a happy gamer, and you will save a lot of cash compared to the 640mb version that often will not outperform the 320mb version.

 

[BenchZowner]

Originally posted by: pcslookout
I dare you to try Rainbow Vegas on a GTX at 1680x1050 with all details on high (I mean all not just some), 4x AA and 16 AF. I bet you won't be able to get playable frame rates! See thats the problem why can't all games have a standard of the same performence hit when AA and AF is enabled or some universal performence hit?

It doesn't mean its the video card that can't do it. The problem could easily be the game.

1st of all...Rainbow Six Vegas for me ain't a game worth playing.
Even more, it shouldn't be called Rainbow Six ( this cr@p has nothing to do with the first 3 rainbow six games ).

Also it's nUbiSoft...when they learn how to code better than Konami ( sigh ) or EA I might bother

As for the performance hit from AA/AF...AA is dependent ( except hardware-wise ) on how many 'objects' it has to be applied to. Same applies to AF...it all depends on the scene ( apart from HW ).

Apart from that...let's say that you load Call Of Duty 2 in DirectX 9 mode, at 1680x1050 with 4xAA/4xAF...do you know how much VRAM it consumes/needs ?
So much that it fills up all the 320mb of the GTS and loads up another ~100 on your RAM.
How much fun would that be if we were using AGP versions of todays' cards instead of PCI-Express ?

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: BenchZowner

Originally posted by: pcslookout
I dare you to try Rainbow Vegas on a GTX at 1680x1050 with all details on high (I mean all not just some), 4x AA and 16 AF. I bet you won't be able to get playable frame rates! See thats the problem why can't all games have a standard of the same performence hit when AA and AF is enabled or some universal performence hit?

It doesn't mean its the video card that can't do it. The problem could easily be the game.

1st of all...Rainbow Six Vegas for me ain't a game worth playing.
Even more, it shouldn't be called Rainbow Six ( this cr@p has nothing to do with the first 3 rainbow six games ).

Also it's nUbiSoft...when they learn how to code better than Konami ( sigh ) or EA I might bother

As for the performance hit from AA/AF...AA is dependent ( except hardware-wise ) on how many 'objects' it has to be applied to. Same applies to AF...it all depends on the scene ( apart from HW ).

Apart from that...let's say that you load Call Of Duty 2 in DirectX 9 mode, at 1680x1050 with 4xAA/4xAF...do you know how much VRAM it consumes/needs ?
So much that it fills up all the 320mb of the GTS and loads up another ~100 on your RAM.
How much fun would that be if we were using AGP versions of todays' cards instead of PCI-Express ?

I don't need 4x AA though 2x AA is fine. You can't really notice a huge difference and its worth getting the extra performence by going from 4x AA to 2x AA if need be.

 

[shadowofthesun]

Originally posted by: BenchZowner

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
More bullshit, 49fps is very playable, especially in an RTS. When we are talking fast paced shooters i'd still say 50fps is very playable.

And what do you mean, doesn't feel comfortable to me? I guess that's why your site isn't working, because it couldn't pay for itself through ads because it sucked?

yeah, 49fps average, with 31fps minimum is...a very enjoyable gameplay...

As for your rather insulting comment about my site...it's not worth answering.
I'm not going to take your shit.

While I agree that the comments about your site were out of line, there are some valid points made.

For one, in an RTS 31 fps (worst case scenario) is extremely playable- considering that C&C 3, a popular RTS, is capped at 30 fps and complaints about its unplayability are rare.

Also, his complaint about your GTX results was valid- while it may not have been your intention, the implication of your post was a GTS 320 vs GTX type comparison. Taken in context, it seems like you were trying to perform this comparison based on memory size- again, not your intention but clearly misleading. There is no reason to post the GTX results, seeing as the added shader power and memory bandwidth will pull the GTX out in front and only serve to add confusion to the comparison.

Basically the conclusion drawn should be that at mainstream resolutions (1680 x 1050 is probably the limit of the 320) the 320 and 640 will be neck and neck. In texture-heavy games and at massive resolutions with AA and AF applied, the 320 will fall back.

Personally, I would say that the RAM on the video card should be at least 256 for 1280x1024 or lower, 320-512 for resolutions up to 1680x1050, and 512 and up for anything higher. Memory should also be no larger than 2x the memory bus if possible (otherwise it's a huge waste of money).

 

[BenchZowner]

It's not that smooth, but like you said you can drop some detail levels.
p.s. I'm taking about the absolute max ( some settings have Ultra levels, above High )

BTW don't judge the gameplay of a game if you haven't played it ( generally speaking ), because what sounds ok, can be bad.
For example, have you ever tried playing x3: Reunion at 45fps average ? Was it playable ?

Anyways, the conversation here is "How much memory you'd like your VGA to have", not a e-p3nis fight so let us all calm down.

By the way, you are entitled to dislike my site if that's what you think/feel, but that was way off topic and personal. [ oh, and the site is still running...I was updating the server ]

 

[MarcVenice]

I haven't played X3, wanna buy it of steam but can't. I did play CoH though, just a few minutes ago, with my 1680*1050 screen and 8800gts 320mb, what a coincidence, I cranked everything up way high to get 30fps going. It was still very playable if you ask me. I'm sure if I get into more intense battles the fps will drop further, but this was with AA/AF levels higher then 2x/4x.

And like I said, it was a little harsh and I edited the post. To bad shadow qouted me...

 

[pcslookout]

BenchZowner sorry if I offended you in anyway, not sure if it was me or not that did. This is be a interesting topic to continue to talk about once Cyris and Unreal 2007 is out to see how much ram it uses at 1680x1050 at all setting on High. I seen on anandtech reviews that high to ultra high you can see no difference and its not worth the extra video ram usage. Like for example Quake 4. So I don't use it. I tried it in Quake 4 with my Geforce 8800 GTS 320 and Quake 4 seem to run ok but I rather just run it at High because it looks the same as Ultra High to me just like anandtech said!

What game uses the most ram right now at 1680x1050 with all details setting on high, 4x AA and 16 AF ? How much video ram does it actually use at these settings ?