So it appears the extra 256mb of RAM on the GTX does almost nothing (in current games)...

[linkgoron]

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo

Originally posted by: IeraseU
Bottom line is I think there's a market for a 256mb 7800GTX with the same clockspeeds currently offered in the 512mb version. IMO by the time it makes a significant difference to have 512mb of ram, the 7800 will be woefully dated......therefore right now higher memory and core clockspeeds without the added expense of memory would be preforable.

Agreed. I'd like to see a 256MB version of this card for $150 less, but it probably won't happen.

What would they call it anyway?

7800 GTX^2.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: ScrewFace
You better watch your mouth, BFGoof10K. Calling people Trolls and Idiots is the work of a 12-year old. I guess you want to get banned.:disgust::|

He has a habit of doing that when he realizes he has no point. He keeps mentioning 3-4 second tests and then claims he has no idea what people are talking about when they ask him about it. :laugh: It's best to ignore his posts, he will start nitpicking at your words to make some inane point that has no relevance to the thread at all.

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: ScrewFace
You better watch your mouth, BFGoof10K. Calling people Trolls and Idiots is the work of a 12-year old. I guess you want to get banned.:disgust::|

He has a habit of doing that when he realizes he has no point. He keeps mentioning 3-4 second tests and then claims he has no idea what people are talking about when they ask him about it. :laugh: It's best to ignore his posts, he will start nitpicking at your words to make some inane point that has no relevance to the thread at all.

I hate to jump in but. I agree with that bolded part. Way too anal. It seems like he only cares about being right. People who are never wrong in their mind, typically know far less than they pretend too.

Though to his credit, BFG does have some good points in most threads.

 

[kylebisme]

can you quote where you think he said " 3-4 second tests"? I looked but the only thing close to that I could find was where he was telling dug777 he never suggeted anything of the sort.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
can you quote where you think he said " 3-4 second tests"? I looked but the only thing close to that I could find was where he was telling dug777 he never suggeted anything of the sort.

no idea. but he did keep saying 'a few seconds'. most benchmarks i know of run for a few minutes at least. I do think this is somewhat of a moot point however

EDIT: i personally don't know how best to test this increased smoothness factor, does it show up in Hardocp's benchmarking?

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
can you quote where you think he said " 3-4 second tests"? I looked but the only thing close to that I could find was where he was telling dug777 he never suggeted anything of the sort.

Well 3-4 seconds is a "few seconds". Cainam mentioned 3-4 seconds because he probably assumes that (like everyone else) to mean a few seconds. Maybe in BFG's world a few seconds is 1 hour in our time.

 

[Snooper]

I have to say: "So?" When I picked up my ATI 9800 Pro 128MB card, it was brand new to the market. The 256MB card had not come out yet. Needless to say, When the 256MB card DID come out, there were TONS of 128MB vs. 256MB comparisions. And, needless to say, there was almost NO difference between then current games between them. Definitely nothing to justify the $100 for the upgrade.

But that was over 2 1/2 years ago. About 6 months after the 256MB card came out, the first games hit that DID perform better on the 256MB card. And some games were quite a bit (20 - 25% or so) faster with the extra memory. Now, that 25% difference can be the difference between playing a game at "ok" speeds and turning things down.

So, don't worry about it. Long before you will need to replace that $700 wonder card, it WILL be performing better than the 256MB card. And besides, you DO get the faster core and the faster memory that makes it much faster than the 256MB card TODAY. If you have the cash to be on a 6 month replacement cycle with $700 cards, then it doesn't MATTER if it is faster or not due to the memory. Buy the fastest card. If you DON'T have the cash to replace a top of the line card that often, the extra $150-$200 spend today just might mean the card lives an extra year in your computer. But maybe not...

 

[blckgrffn]

HEY! Did you guys see Ben's post? IF NOT, GO LOOK AT IT. I am not going to bother quoting it as you all should take the time to go back and stop this nonsense. 512 frame buffer makes about a 30-40% difference in Quake 4 at high resolutions. 'nuf said.

Nat

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
can you quote where you think he said " 3-4 second tests"? I looked but the only thing close to that I could find was where he was telling dug777 he never suggeted anything of the sort.

Well 3-4 seconds is a "few seconds". Cainam mentioned 3-4 seconds because he probably assumes that (like everyone else) to mean a few seconds. Maybe in BFG's world a few seconds is 1 hour in our time.

Ahh, so either you think there are a lot of hour long demos or you are just arguing semantics, eh?

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: blckgrffn
HEY! Did you guys see Ben's post? IF NOT, GO LOOK AT IT. I am not going to bother quoting it as you all should take the time to go back and stop this nonsense. 512 frame buffer makes about a 30-40% difference in Quake 4 at high resolutions. 'nuf said.

Nat

it makes a difference, but it's nowhere near that high once you take into account the core/mem speed increases...if you noticed the 512mb has a 42% increase in bandwidth over the 256...certainly the 512mb is coming into play, but nowhere near as much as you suggest.

Now go back and look at the AT Q4 benchmark results, and you'll see at the same clock speeds there's no difference, at 2048 and 4xAA, and an unplayable fps at that...wow, Q4 at the highest resolution, with AA..what did you say again mate?

so i suggest YOU get your facts straight before you come in here and talk to us like we're ignorant kids.

 

[BFG10K]

few seconds, ie couple, several, etc. -- more than one but indefinately small in number.

Right, so how does me saying "few seconds" constitute 3-4 seconds? Any such implication is simply opinion on your part. Either that or you're clutching at straws and looking for some kind of conflict where there is none.

Click.

few ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fy)
adj. few·er, few·est
Amounting to or consisting of a small number: one of my few bad habits.
Being more than one but indefinitely small in number: bowled a few strings.

n. (used with a pl. verb)
An indefinitely small number of persons or things: A few of the books have torn jackets.
An exclusive or limited number: the discerning few; the fortunate few.

pron. (used with a pl. verb)
A small number of persons or things: ?For many are called, but few are chosen? (Matthew 22:14).

He keeps mentioning 3-4 second tests and then claims he has no idea what people are talking about when they ask him about it.

Except I never mentioned 3-4 second tests and hence any such claim is a figment of certain peoples' imaginations.

Well 3-4 seconds is a "few seconds"."

So is 1000-1010 seconds compared to 100000000 seconds.

Cainam mentioned 3-4 seconds because he probably assumes that (like everyone else) to mean a few seconds.

Cainam is clutching at straws and passing his opinion as fact, much like everyone else here that has latched onto the fictional 3-4 second claim.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

few seconds, ie couple, several, etc. -- more than one but indefinately small in number.

Right, so how does me saying "few seconds" constitute 3-4 seconds? Any such implication is simply opinion on your part. Either that or you're clutching at straws and looking for some kind of conflict where there is none.

Well 3-4 seconds is a "few seconds"."

So is 1000-1010 seconds compared to 100000000 seconds.

Cainam mentioned 3-4 seconds because he probably assumes that (like everyone else) to mean a few seconds.

Cainam is clucthing at straws and passing his opinion as fact, much like everyone else here that has latched onto the fictional 3-4 second claim.

Ah more BFG obscurity. Makes a vague statement like, "few seconds" and then looks up a dictionary to prove his point - which is that he had no point to begin with! :laugh: Most normal people refer to a few seconds as maybe 2-4 seconds. But like I mentioned earlier, in BFG's world, a few seconds could be an hour in our time.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
can you quote where you think he said " 3-4 second tests"? I looked but the only thing close to that I could find was where he was telling dug777 he never suggeted anything of the sort.

Well 3-4 seconds is a "few seconds". Cainam mentioned 3-4 seconds because he probably assumes that (like everyone else) to mean a few seconds. Maybe in BFG's world a few seconds is 1 hour in our time.

Ahh, so either you think there are a lot of hour long demos or you are just arguing semantics, eh?

No I think there may be demos tha span several minutes but not a "few seconds". But in BFGverse, a few seconds can apparently range from 0-infinity.

 

[BFG10K]

You better watch your mouth, BFGoof10K. Calling people Trolls and Idiots is the work of a 12-year old. I guess you want to get banned.

I think that quote speaks for itself. Nothing more is needed to say about that one. :roll:

Yes but if Q4 really does hitch or stutter on Ultra quality on a 256MB board, then just run it on high.

Lets take it a step further - if your 32 MB card is stuttering then just run the game at 320x240x16.

The quality difference is negligable,

That's your opinion which again has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

The two quotes above aren't addressing the issue. The issue here is the difference between 256 and 512, not what setting options we have and not what sort of IQ difference we think we can or can't see at said settings. It's also nothing to do with yours or my "manhood".

COD2 didn't seem to show any gains in the Anandtech review.

Did you miss my Cod2 benchmarks?

This also proves that ID was completely full of it when they said Doom 3 uses 500MB of texture memory.

Oh, so now you know more than ID software's programmers because a benchmark fragment from Anandtech didn't show a difference?

It's a fact that certain Doom 3/Quake 4 scenes use over 500 MB RAM under Ultra quality. It's also a fact that if you were to benchmark these areas you would see a gain from 512 MB cards and Ben's benchmarks show a clear benefit in Quake 4.

People still don't get it - you can't use an arbitrary demo to disprove there is a difference. It's like me going to my back yard, seeing no whales there and from that concluding whales don't exist. It's ridiculous.

Funny you bring up the orginal CoD as a game that used lots of texture ram right after you say the 256mb 9800pros were never any better as CoD was one of the first games to make use of over 128mb of video ram and the 256mb 9800pros were basicly the best cards out for that game when it came out.

Interestingly enough even the original CoD will benefit from 512 MB cards. I run the game at 1856x1392 with 6xAA on my 256 MB X800XL and while the card has plenty of juice at that setting, I can definitely notice texture swapping in certain areas of the game.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
can you quote where you think he said " 3-4 second tests"? I looked but the only thing close to that I could find was where he was telling dug777 he never suggeted anything of the sort.

Well, from my corner of the world, a few has always meant 3.

single = 1
couple = 2
few = 3
several = 4 -11
dozen = 12

BFG mentioned the words "a few seconds" more than once. So, people will zero in on that if it is to their advantage and leave it alone if it is not or moot to them.

BFG says he never said 3-4 seconds and he would be right. But only because he didn't use those exact words. Pretty lame folks. BFG get back on the wagon, it would seem you have gone on a bender and are trying to raise hell every chance you get. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind just biting that tongue once in a while, or at least just have a civil discussion with the rest of us mortals.

 

[BFG10K]

Makes a vague statement like, "few seconds" and then looks up a dictionary to prove his point - which is that he had no point to begin with!

This is an English speaking forum. If you have trouble understanding the concept of an English dictionary providing the basis for English words' definitions then you likely have issues that extend beyond the scope of this thread.

Most normal people refer to a few seconds as maybe 2-4 seconds.

Yet your interpretation of my comment was 3-4 seconds so using your definition can we conclude you're not normal?

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: blckgrffn
HEY! Did you guys see Ben's post? IF NOT, GO LOOK AT IT. I am not going to bother quoting it as you all should take the time to go back and stop this nonsense. 512 frame buffer makes about a 30-40% difference in Quake 4 at high resolutions. 'nuf said.

Nat

it makes a difference, but it's nowhere near that high once you take into account the core/mem speed increases...if you noticed the 512mb has a 42% increase in bandwidth over the 256...certainly the 512mb is coming into play, but nowhere near as much as you suggest.

Now go back and look at the AT Q4 benchmark results, and you'll see at the same clock speeds there's no difference, at 2048 and 4xAA, and an unplayable fps at that...wow, Q4 at the highest resolution, with AA..what did you say again mate?

so i suggest YOU get your facts straight before you come in here and talk to us like we're ignorant kids.

All AT's benchmarks vs the worlds indicate is that they don't have a high texture loading area in the demo they used. Plus, we don't have any idea what the minimum frame rates (instantaneous teens that stutter) were because they aren't there. How much does 42% more band width help? I added about 15% to my card and got about a 2% performance increase back out... that would take a lot to just credit to the memory speeds when we are seeing a 50+ % performance difference. Clocking my 6600 from 400 to 500 mhz never gained me a 50% performance bonus, either Even 300 to 500 didn't unlock that much power.

Think critically like an adult then B3D's benchmarks paint a very different picture and too swallow AT's article without question assuming that they covered all their bases completely. I would say that Anandtech video reviews are among their weakest, actually.

Besides all that, the faster memory could have very high latencies that get exageratted by clocking it slower. Also, future driver revisions could show more significant perormance gains. 512 matters now and it will matter much more shortly. Like I have said before, I wish I could get a 512 GT at 500/1.5 clocks for $400 Never going to happen though...

Eh... didn't mean to be that confrontational, but no one even responded to it and you seemed to want numbers (proof) that the 512 is worth something. Since Anandtech says it doesn't, many here seem to be stuck on that even though others clearly point out that it makes a noticeable and desireable difference.

Nat

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Makes a vague statement like, "few seconds" and then looks up a dictionary to prove his point - which is that he had no point to begin with!

This is an English speaking forum. If you have trouble understanding the concept of an English dictionary providing the basis for English words' definitions then you likely have issues that extend beyond the scope of this thread.

Most normal people refer to a few seconds as maybe 2-4 seconds.

Yet your interpretation of my comment was 3-4 seconds so using your definition can we conclude you're not normal?

Can't you stop?

Anyway, as many people have said, it's not the extra 256MB of GDDR3 that boosted performance, but the significantly increased speed of the memory. I agree that a 7800GTX 256 clocked at 550/1700 would yield similar results to the 512GTX. The 512 will help in very few games right now. You can count on one hand and still have digits to spare. Right now. Maybe by next year, games that utilize 512 on a regular basis will be hitting the streets. Who knows.

 

[BFG10K]

I'll stop when everyone else does.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I'll stop when everyone else does.

Why does everyone else have to stop what you started?

 

[AznAnarchy99]

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2607&p=3

im confused

 

[BFG10K]

Why does everyone else have to stop what you started?

What I started was posting facts and logical arguments and I make no apologies for that. This topic was flawed from the onset and I've already repeatedly explained why, not to mention the numerous benchmarks from multiple posters that have confirmed my comments.

Now we're reduced to the stage of certain people arguing why in their opinion they think I meant 3-4 seconds when I said "few", and also that using a dictionary is invalid. It's the most blatant clutching at straws I've seen in quite some time.

 

[Justin343563611]

Well, hasn't 512MB on a video card pretty much been the same with the 256 variant all this time, remember the x800 XL 512, yeah, nothing there, 6800 Ultra 512, yeah, nothing there, they need basically make 512megs the native memory capacity for these chips to support in my opinion before they can implement them onto a board.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Why does everyone else have to stop what you started?

What I started was posting facts and logical arguments and I make no apologies for that. This topic was flawed from the onset and I've already repeatedly explained why, not to mention the numerous benchmarks from multiple posters that have confirmed my comments.

Now we're reduced to the stage of certain people arguing why in their opinion they think I meant 3-4 seconds when I said "few", and also that using a dictionary is invalid. It's the most blatant clutching at straws I've seen in quite some time.

I understand your position, but the details really don't concern me now after seeing what this "discussion" evolved into. I just want it to stop. You all constantly try to one up each other and have the "never say die" mentality to go along with it. Point is, no one ever wins, both sides lose face, and the whole discussion was really ridiculous anyway. So, I don't think it's worth it for either side to continue at this point.

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: Justin343563611
Well, hasn't 512MB on a video card pretty much been the same with the 256 variant all this time, remember the x800 XL 512, yeah, nothing there, 6800 Ultra 512, yeah, nothing there, they need basically make 512megs the native memory capacity for these chips to support in my opinion before they can implement them onto a board.

For now, 512MB is just one word: Marketing

Now in the future it's going to get more useful, like nowadays you wouldnt be caught dead with a 128MB card if you want 'top of the line'

In my mind more than anything else in this GPU war, marketing has driven innovation, the marketing department says hmm we'll push this point because we think it's important and people will use this as a reason to buy our card.

Perfect example is the Geforce 6 series with SM 3.0 and HDR....now look at the X1800 and GF 7800 series....all the hypes is HDR + AA and SM 3.0 done right and now they are saying you need 512MB to be teh master of COD2