Should I even bother getting a 128MB Ti200?

[Imported]

Or stick with 64MB and be happy with that.. Gainward GS, I'm getting one of the two.. just don't know if it's worth the $50 for 64MB more.

 

[MrDudeMan]

yeah its worth it. games are going to be insane in the near future..the extra 64 mb will help in speeds...think about it..if you have 512mb of ram, or even better 1gb+ (which i have), you can run the entire game off of your ram once its loaded. i have 1.5gb DDR ram and a 128mb ti200, so ram dedicated to agp is 256+128, 384mb dedicated to AGP slot, then what is left over of my ram is for the system...when i load everquest, the first time i load..its fast but not very fast...the second time..i have so much ram its all loaded and it takes like 5 seconds to load 1.5gb of info lol. its worth it in the long run..plus you can just say you have it

 

[Ionizer86]

IMHO, I'd say it's not worth it. Go back a generation to Geforce 2 GTS. They came in 32mb and 64mb versions. When benched, 64mb versions were at most like 3fps faster, and the 32mb version came out like 1fps faster sometimes (32mb GTS cards use DDR SGRAM).

I have a 32mb GTS-V card, and it works well. Textures in games are compressed, so it's probably not worth more ram, although $50 would be good for more bandwidth on the card, or a faster core

 

[Soccerman]

perhaps

why? well there IS a difference between 32 and 64 megs even when not at ultra high resolutions. that indicates that some AGP texturing is occuring.

when at ultra high resolutions (1600x1200x32) you might begin to fill up 64 megs of RAM and rely again on the AGP texturing. This isn't proven though with benches yet so you might be wasting your money

also, if even todays latest games don't use AGP texturing at 1600x1200x32, then you'll probably never need more than 128 megs becuase tommorows games won't let your video card run at such high resolutions with a high enough framerate to play properly. they might use a bit more texture memory though (it's hard to say becuase if games become detailed enough, just coloured pixels will suffice, rather than requireing a texture).

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

I would go for the 64 megger, 128 MB is overkill for the games that the GF3 Ti200 will be able to play at resolutions that require 128 MB. For example, I doubt you will see a big boost for today's games and by the time Doom3 hits the streets and there is a noticeable improvement for going to 128 MB, you'll probably want to upgrade to an NV30 core to run it at high res.

IMHO 128 MB Video RAM is for marketing and bragging rights at this point in time.

For the extra $50 you can probably get a Radeon 8500 OEM... which will definetly perform better than the Ti200

-Ice

 

[MrDudeMan]

whatever dude the radeon 8500 is slower than the g3. all the stats are slower...

 

[konichiwa]

If you overclock the Ti200 you can most likely reach Ti500 levels if not higher which will put you right on par with the 8500.

 

[neutralizer]

If you had the dough to waste on a 128mb GF3 Ti200, you might as well just wait for the GF4.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

<< whatever dude the radeon 8500 is slower than the g3. all the stats are slower... >>



Ahem... maybe you should read Anand's latest review with Epic's next gen (UnrealII) engine over Here

The Radeon 8500 (Retail) is slightly slower than the GF3 Ti500 on most current games and faster on some. the Radeon 8500 OEM is surely comparable, and probably superior to the GF3 Ti200.

In addition it has superb DVD playback quality with low CPU usage AND is DirectX 8.1-compliant. The 2-D is arguably better and equivalent at worst.

I don't know about OC'ing, but I'm talking stock speeds here... I bet the 8500 OEM can usually OC to retail speeds or better which would keep it competitive with a Ti500-level Ti200.


Just my opinion. Whatever card you do pick, 64 MB is the way to go

-Ice

 

[konichiwa]

<< If you had the dough to waste on a 128mb GF3 Ti200, you might as well just wait for the GF4. >>

the Gainward is only $200 shipped. Not that much in comparison ...

 

[neutralizer]

When the GF4 does come out, there's going to be ti200 version of it and it will be priced around $200.

 

[FlippyBoy]

my thinking is that you're better off putting that money to better use. bragging rights are nice, but in the end, its all about the all-mighty framerate, and that 128 megs just wont do it for ya. invest in something better like a 8500, or in a gf4mx card.

 

[ed21x]

<< whatever dude the radeon 8500 is slower than the g3. all the stats are slower... >>



just another ignorant nVidia fanboy...
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1580

 

[MrPabulum]

If you have an mighty CPU to match. .(which may very well mean that you (have the dough), it might be worth it, since I can't imagine the difference between 64 and 128 mb being noticeable anywhere but at 1600X1200. Which is nice.

 

[Imported]

Bought the 64MB version.. $160 retail. Contemplated on the Radeon 8500, but decided it wasn't for me. I don't have a DVD player on my PC (probably never will) and I've already had good experiences with nVidia products. Now to wait for it to come..

 

[mrman3k]

Unless you are planning on playing FS2002 with max textures, it will definetly use the 128MB of memory, otherwise it is not necessary.

 

[MrDudeMan]

i dont appreciate that, im not a fanboy, i just read some of the stats. so go flame someone else you a$$hole

 

[ed21x]

then read the stats i have given you and get your facts straight.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1580

 

[MrDudeMan]

i did, so no need to get all uptight about it. maybe you should take some relaxers and grab a beer you freakin maniac


edit: sorry everyone dont mean to be a jerk, but he should keep his mouth shut

 

[ed21x]

sorry to have started a flame, but people who speak in open generalizations without a single hint of proof annoy the heck out of me. next time, just restate it in a way thats a bit less overgeneralized. by the way, have you actually read up on anandtech's last radeon 8500 review? or owned an ati card yourself?

 

[MrDudeMan]

yeah actually i have, and i didnt say they were bad, i have a 7500

 

[FishTankX]

I have a Radeon8500 and it's nice. Definatley not what I expected (250/250 in a retail box) and after paying 300$ for it I was *SERIOUSLY* ticked but... once you get past that, this card is a dream. Anyone ever played Aquanox at 60FPS average? Or more like locked at 60FPS, 85FPS average. Seriously cool. All other games run at around 60FPS average. Did I mention i'm running all my games in 800X600? Now, I know, you're thinking *DANG*! You can afford a kickass system like that, but can't afford a 17 inch monitor. My answer? This was a loan for my parents. Nearly 1100$. I didn't have room to factor in the monitor once I found out that my Retail Radeon8500 cost 300$, CPU cost 200$, Motherboard cost 190$, Sound card cost 125$... things are natrually higher in China. Anyways, Radeon8500 I would reccomend to anyone who didn't demand the ultimate in compatibility for every single game out now and is willing to wait a few months for the drivers to improve. I'm keeping this card for a whole 1 1/2 years so I had to get something that wouldn't get weighed down.