The needing of 256mb for games

[VIAN]

Warning, stuff highlighted in Bold, except this statement is probably crap.

If you enable AA and AF, then you need 256, if not, then you don't need it.

I consider a 6800 very good for high resolution, but no AA/AF enabled games. That's why it has little bandwidth and only 128MBs of RAM and only 12 pipes. Without AA/AF, this card is almost as fast as the GT and Ultra and makes them not worth getting.

The GT and Ultra will give you that extra kick you need when you use AA/AF in the latest games.


BTW, I can play UT2004 with all in game options at the highest and 1280x1024 with no AA/AF, I haven't tried after. My card is a 6600GT.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: VIAN
If you enable AA and AF, then you need 256, if not, then you don't need it.

I consider a 6800 very good for high resolution, but no AA/AF enabled games. That's why it has little bandwidth and only 128MBs of RAM and only 12 pipes. Without AA/AF, this card is almost as fast as the GT and Ultra and makes them not worth getting.

The GT and Ultra will give you that extra kick you need when you use AA/AF in the latest games.


BTW, I can play UT2004 with all in game options at the highest and 1280x1024 with no AA/AF, I haven't tried after. My card is a 6600GT.

As it turns out, the 6800GT and Ultra are VERY much faster then a 6600GT/6800nu when resolutions are cranked with, or without AA/AF. The 6800nu tanks when resolutions are cranked, even without AA/AF. Theres just not enough memory to accomodate the textures in many new games out there. I am saying this because I own both a 6800nu and a 6800GT. So I speaketh the gospel..... LOL.
A 6600GT and a 6800nu (both 128MB cards and 128-bit/256-bit respectively) are very close in performance with the 6800 generally edging out the 6600GT.

If you can get your hands on a PCI-E version of the 6800nu (which carries 256MB of 600MHz DDR) for a decent price, that may be a way to go.

But to be honest, I would not buy a lesser card today than a ATI X800XL/6800GT. At least you know the cards are powerfull enough to utilize all that memory and then some.

 

[fstime]

I would say 256 would help a lot with people with large screens like the dell 2001 and 2005 monitors.

It would assume a 128 card would die right there if you tried to apply AA/AF to a res like 1600 even if theres 256 bit memory.

 

[PrayForDeath]

I game at 1600x1200 on my 6600GT in UT2K4, KotOR2, Doom3, and HL2. And they are all playable. I use no AA (except for KotOR) and I use varied AF (4x-16x) (except for UT2K4). The games are pretty much playable and ejoyable (FPS over 40).

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: BouZouki
I would say 256 would help a lot with people with large screens like the dell 2001 and 2005 monitors.

It would assume a 128 card would die right there if you tried to apply AA/AF to a res like 1600 even if theres 256 bit memory.

Yah, for example, the 6800nu AGP came "quadruple crippled" right from the start compared with 6800GT/Ultra.

6600GT................8 pipes @ 500MHz.......128MB GDDR3 @ 1000MHz........128-bit
6800nu (AGP)...12 pipes @ 325 MHz......128MB DDR1 ...@.. 700MHz.........256-bit
6800GT..............16 pipes @ 350MHz.......256MB GDDR3 @ 1000MHz.........256-bit
6800Ultra...........16 pipes @ 400MHz.......256MB GDDR3 @ 1100MHz.........256-bit

EDIT: forgot to add that the 6800nu also has one vertex shader unit turned off for a total of 5 instead of the 6 present in 6800GT/Ultra


The items in bold show where the cripplage takes place. And you can see also why the 6600GT competes closely to the 6800nu due to the 6600GT's super high clock speed in both memory and core even with less pipes and half the memory bit width.

The performance advantage a 6800GT/Ultra has over a 6800nu is rather large and you can see why here.
So, there are a lot of factors that contribute to a vid cards performance and its not just quantity of things but speed and width as well.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: BFG10K

do u really need 256mb for games in 6 months?

6 months? 2002's UT2003 already kills 128 MB cards and that game is three years old.

WTF you talking about? Unless you play at 1600*1200 + AA/AF, ut2003 runs smooth as glass on my 128mb card.

Ya I dont know either.
BFG says alot of things that I'm like "wha what??" This is one of them.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: housecat

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: BFG10K

do u really need 256mb for games in 6 months?

6 months? 2002's UT2003 already kills 128 MB cards and that game is three years old.

WTF you talking about? Unless you play at 1600*1200 + AA/AF, ut2003 runs smooth as glass on my 128mb card.

Ya I dont know either.
BFG says alot of things that I'm like "wha what??" This is one of them.

It's probably because he has higher "acceptable gaming" standards, which is totally normal, as long as you got the money to pay. Please don't take this as an offense. I am saying it's normal.

 

[VIAN]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
As it turns out, the 6800GT and Ultra are VERY much faster then a 6600GT/6800nu when resolutions are cranked with, or without AA/AF. The 6800nu tanks when resolutions are cranked, even without AA/AF. Theres just not enough memory to accomodate the textures in many new games out there. I am saying this because I own both a 6800nu and a 6800GT. So I speaketh the gospel..... LOL.
A 6600GT and a 6800nu (both 128MB cards and 128-bit/256-bit respectively) are very close in performance with the 6800 generally edging out the 6600GT.

You know what, I gotta stop going to Tom's VGA charts, that's what I gotta do. I couldn't even find the 6800 in recent Anandtech articles. I had to go to google and read and review about it. Turns out that in most new games, the 6800GT alone leads the 6800 by about 15-30% higher performance at 1280x1024. At 1600x1200, the GT can lead up to 100% higher performance, but not always. I was way off and I apologize to everyone for posting crap and thanks for correcting me keysplayr2003.

 

[ChickenStrips]

256mb is required for games like Doom3, Far Cry that have many textures and is required to apply AA/AF

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: VIAN

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
As it turns out, the 6800GT and Ultra are VERY much faster then a 6600GT/6800nu when resolutions are cranked with, or without AA/AF. The 6800nu tanks when resolutions are cranked, even without AA/AF. Theres just not enough memory to accomodate the textures in many new games out there. I am saying this because I own both a 6800nu and a 6800GT. So I speaketh the gospel..... LOL.
A 6600GT and a 6800nu (both 128MB cards and 128-bit/256-bit respectively) are very close in performance with the 6800 generally edging out the 6600GT.

You know what, I gotta stop going to Tom's VGA charts, that's what I gotta do. I couldn't even find the 6800 in recent Anandtech articles. I had to go to google and read and review about it. Turns out that in most new games, the 6800GT alone leads the 6800 by about 15-30% higher performance at 1280x1024. At 1600x1200, the GT can lead up to 100% higher performance, but not always. I was way off and I apologize to everyone for posting crap and thanks for correcting me keysplayr2003.

:beer:

 

[BFG10K]

Ya I dont know either.

Analyze the minimum framerates from multiple benchmark runs and you'll soon get a very clear picture of what's happening.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: ChickenStrips
256mb is required for games like Doom3, Far Cry that have many textures and is required to apply AA/AF

Show me a bench in doom3 at ultra settings between a 9800Pro 256MB and 128MB. I play doom3 at 1024X768 ultra settings and get 40-60+ fps throughout.

 

[Pete]

Here's a good summary of why AA and high res require lots of board memory:

A rendering resolution of 1600x1200 with 32-bit colour uses about 30MB of frame buffer space, applying 4x FSAA increases that to an order of about 75MB; ATI also has a 6x FSAA mode which at these levels uses in excess of 100MB of frame buffer space.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: VIAN

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
As it turns out, the 6800GT and Ultra are VERY much faster then a 6600GT/6800nu when resolutions are cranked with, or without AA/AF. The 6800nu tanks when resolutions are cranked, even without AA/AF. Theres just not enough memory to accomodate the textures in many new games out there. I am saying this because I own both a 6800nu and a 6800GT. So I speaketh the gospel..... LOL.
A 6600GT and a 6800nu (both 128MB cards and 128-bit/256-bit respectively) are very close in performance with the 6800 generally edging out the 6600GT.

You know what, I gotta stop going to Tom's VGA charts, that's what I gotta do. I couldn't even find the 6800 in recent Anandtech articles. I had to go to google and read and review about it. Turns out that in most new games, the 6800GT alone leads the 6800 by about 15-30% higher performance at 1280x1024. At 1600x1200, the GT can lead up to 100% higher performance, but not always. I was way off and I apologize to everyone for posting crap and thanks for correcting me keysplayr2003.

:beer:

 

[exar333]

Come on! A 6800 is atleast 50% faster than the 9800XT due to 12pipes/faster memory.

As for the OP, yes, 256Mb makes a difference these days, but only with high-end cards, and when running on high resolutions and AA/AF settings. So I'd recommend getting something better than a 6800NU (6800GT or an X800XL for example). No shooters coming in the next 6 months? Let's see, Prey, HL2 EX, FEAR, STALKER, Q4, Serious Sam 2, etc... That's what I can think of ATM. And as for your PCI-e comment, it actually offers no performance increase over AGP. It's just a future-proof thingy along with more power support.


what are you smoking? the 9800xt has beat the 6800NU in some benches...its def NOT 50% faster...your way off on that one...its a MARGINAL at best upgrade...waste of money unless thats what you like to do...buy a 6800gt or x800xl at least for a real upgrade

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
Come on! A 6800 is atleast 50% faster than the 9800XT due to 12pipes/faster memory.

As for the OP, yes, 256Mb makes a difference these days, but only with high-end cards, and when running on high resolutions and AA/AF settings. So I'd recommend getting something better than a 6800NU (6800GT or an X800XL for example). No shooters coming in the next 6 months? Let's see, Prey, HL2 EX, FEAR, STALKER, Q4, Serious Sam 2, etc... That's what I can think of ATM. And as for your PCI-e comment, it actually offers no performance increase over AGP. It's just a future-proof thingy along with more power support.


what are you smoking? the 9800xt has beat the 6800NU in some benches...its def NOT 50% faster...your way off on that one...its a MARGINAL at best upgrade...waste of money unless thats what you like to do...buy a 6800gt or x800xl at least for a real upgrade

I am smoking numbers... 1 2 3 4
Of course, in high resolutions and AA/AF, the XT sometimes bests the 6800 due to 256Mb vs 128Mb.

 

[VIAN]

http://www.overclockercafe.com/Reviews/VGA/Inno3D_GeForce-6800/
When you turn on AA/AF at high resolutions, the 9800XT can beat the 6800 by up to 15% in many games. But without AA/AF, the 6800 is faster by up to 30%, although not in every game, in FarCry - the 9800XT beat the 6800 at 1024x768 and at 1600x1200, and the 6800 is nearly twice the speed in Doom3.

Tom better start doing higher resolutions.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: VIAN
http://www.overclockercafe.com/Reviews/VGA/Inno3D_GeForce-6800/
When you turn on AA/AF at high resolutions, the 9800XT can beat the 6800 by up to 15% in many games. But without AA/AF, the 6800 is faster by up to 30%, although not in every game, in FarCry - the 9800XT beat the 6800 at 1024x768 and at 1600x1200, and the 6800 is nearly twice the speed in Doom3.

Tom better start doing higher resolutions.

As I said, the cripplage is due to smaller memory, but the card is technically faster. And according to Tom's charts, the 6800 beats the XT in FarCry in every resolution/AA/AF combination in the article.

They don't do all the resolutions because it's a chart comparing 20+ cards. So it would take them forever to do that.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath

Originally posted by: VIAN
http://www.overclockercafe.com/Reviews/VGA/Inno3D_GeForce-6800/
When you turn on AA/AF at high resolutions, the 9800XT can beat the 6800 by up to 15% in many games. But without AA/AF, the 6800 is faster by up to 30%, although not in every game, in FarCry - the 9800XT beat the 6800 at 1024x768 and at 1600x1200, and the 6800 is nearly twice the speed in Doom3.

Tom better start doing higher resolutions.

As I said, the cripplage is due to smaller memory, but the card is technically faster. And according to Tom's charts, the 6800 beats the XT in FarCry in every resolution/AA/AF combination in the article.

They don't do all the resolutions because it's a chart comparing 20+ cards. So it would take them forever to do that.

So . . . unlike the misinfo posted earlier - the 256bit Radeon 9800pro DOES make use of it's 256MB vRAM in it's "XT" incarnation.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath

Originally posted by: VIAN
http://www.overclockercafe.com/Reviews/VGA/Inno3D_GeForce-6800/
When you turn on AA/AF at high resolutions, the 9800XT can beat the 6800 by up to 15% in many games. But without AA/AF, the 6800 is faster by up to 30%, although not in every game, in FarCry - the 9800XT beat the 6800 at 1024x768 and at 1600x1200, and the 6800 is nearly twice the speed in Doom3.

Tom better start doing higher resolutions.

As I said, the cripplage is due to smaller memory, but the card is technically faster. And according to Tom's charts, the 6800 beats the XT in FarCry in every resolution/AA/AF combination in the article.

They don't do all the resolutions because it's a chart comparing 20+ cards. So it would take them forever to do that.

So . . . unlike the misinfo posted earlier - the 256bit Radeon 9800pro DOES make use of it's 256MB vRAM in it's "XT" incarnation.

That's right, but only with extreme resolutions and AA/AF settings, and the benefit isn't great. It's not even powerful enough to make use of that memory because who games with a 9800XT at 1600x1200 4xAA/16xAF like the benches at toms? Nobody.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath

Originally posted by: VIAN
http://www.overclockercafe.com/Reviews/VGA/Inno3D_GeForce-6800/
When you turn on AA/AF at high resolutions, the 9800XT can beat the 6800 by up to 15% in many games. But without AA/AF, the 6800 is faster by up to 30%, although not in every game, in FarCry - the 9800XT beat the 6800 at 1024x768 and at 1600x1200, and the 6800 is nearly twice the speed in Doom3.

Tom better start doing higher resolutions.

As I said, the cripplage is due to smaller memory, but the card is technically faster. And according to Tom's charts, the 6800 beats the XT in FarCry in every resolution/AA/AF combination in the article.

They don't do all the resolutions because it's a chart comparing 20+ cards. So it would take them forever to do that.

So . . . unlike the misinfo posted earlier - the 256bit Radeon 9800pro DOES make use of it's 256MB vRAM in it's "XT" incarnation.

That's right, but only with extreme resolutions and AA/AF settings, and the benefit isn't great. It's not even powerful enough to make use of that memory because who games with a 9800XT at 1600x1200 4xAA/16xAF like the benches at toms? Nobody.

certainly, not anymore . . . it wasn't that long ago it was the top card that people were using at 16x12 . . . however, there was quite a price premium for that slightly higher core clock, faster and extra 128MB vRAM . . . so high, in fact, it was wrongly concluded that it couldn't "use" the extra vRAM.

it DOES use its 256MB of vRAM when playing PK's BOoH which requires 256MB to turn everything 'on'. My 9800xt has no trouble with BOoH at 10x7 and everything maxed and on plus even 2xAA/4xAF . . . something the 128MB version of the 9800p cannot do.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath

Originally posted by: VIAN
http://www.overclockercafe.com/Reviews/VGA/Inno3D_GeForce-6800/
When you turn on AA/AF at high resolutions, the 9800XT can beat the 6800 by up to 15% in many games. But without AA/AF, the 6800 is faster by up to 30%, although not in every game, in FarCry - the 9800XT beat the 6800 at 1024x768 and at 1600x1200, and the 6800 is nearly twice the speed in Doom3.

Tom better start doing higher resolutions.

As I said, the cripplage is due to smaller memory, but the card is technically faster. And according to Tom's charts, the 6800 beats the XT in FarCry in every resolution/AA/AF combination in the article.

They don't do all the resolutions because it's a chart comparing 20+ cards. So it would take them forever to do that.

So . . . unlike the misinfo posted earlier - the 256bit Radeon 9800pro DOES make use of it's 256MB vRAM in it's "XT" incarnation.

That's right, but only with extreme resolutions and AA/AF settings, and the benefit isn't great. It's not even powerful enough to make use of that memory because who games with a 9800XT at 1600x1200 4xAA/16xAF like the benches at toms? Nobody.

certainly, not anymore . . . it wasn't that long ago it was the top card that people were using at 16x12 . . . however, there was quite a price premium for that slightly higher core clock, faster and extra 128MB vRAM . . . so high, in fact, it was wrongly concluded that it couldn't "use" the extra vRAM.

it DOES use its 256MB of vRAM when playing PK's BOoH which requires 256MB to turn everything 'on'. My 9800xt has no trouble with BOoH at 10x7 and everything maxed and on plus even 2xAA/4xAF . . . something the 128MB version of the 9800p cannot do.

This is an example of another use of 256Mb on video card besides high res/AA/AF settings. Which is software that makes use of this amount of memory in its textures data. But again, that doesn't mean the 9800XT is faster than 6800.

edit: that's a large quote

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath

Originally posted by: apoppin

it DOES use its 256MB of vRAM when playing PK's BOoH which requires 256MB to turn everything 'on'. My 9800xt has no trouble with BOoH at 10x7 and everything maxed and on plus even 2xAA/4xAF . . . something the 128MB version of the 9800p cannot do.

This is an example of another use of 256Mb on video card besides high res/AA/AF settings. Which is software that makes use of this amount of memory in its textures data. But again, that doesn't mean the 9800XT is faster than 6800.

edit: that's a large quote

better?



The 6800standard is generally quite noticeably faster than the 9800xt in most situations. . . . OTOH, the 6600gt is pretty close in performance to the 9800xt. If i am not mistaken, the 6600gt - besides being newer and more efficient - is using a fast core and RAM speed to make up for its 128MB vRAM and being 128bit.

 

[ChickenStrips]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: ChickenStrips
256mb is required for games like Doom3, Far Cry that have many textures and is required to apply AA/AF

Show me a bench in doom3 at ultra settings between a 9800Pro 256MB and 128MB. I play doom3 at 1024X768 ultra settings and get 40-60+ fps throughout.

a 9800 pro cant play ultra setting