This or That/ That or This

[sfmedic]

Which card between these two options would you choose?

 

[Bateluer]

I think the 128Mb model with the 256 bit bus would be the faster card. 256MBs is kinda wasted on anything less than a 256 bit bus .

 

[SickBeast]

The first option.

 

[BFG10K]

Width is generally better than size (did I really just say that??? .

 

[sfmedic]

Thanks for the replies. Are there any other cards besides the one listed below that have 128mb/256bus?

As to the question, it is geared specificallly toward the ATI 9800se. Because of its price it seems to be a reasonably priced option for a upper ended card.

EDIT: I have a GeCube 9200se, a Nvidia 5200lite and a TNT2. So any card at this point would be an upper ended card from my perspective.

 

[Concillian]

9800SE (256bit) performs similarly to a 9600 Pro/XT type of card. The advantage of the SE is that it has a chance of having pipelines unlocked to a full 9800 Pro. I don't recall the chances of success there being that great, along the lines of 30-50% or so.

 

[Concillian]

9800SE (256bit) performs similarly to a 9600 Pro/XT type of card. The advantage of the SE is that it has a chance of having pipelines unlocked to a full 9800 Pro. I don't recall the chances of success there being that great, along the lines of 30-50% or so.

If you're comparing to the 9600s the comparison is not direct. Both the 9800SE and the 9600s have 4 pixel pipelines... The 9600s have higher core frequencies which means it has higher fillrates, but the memory bandwidth of a 256bit 9800SE is way higher. So you end up with a situation where one is better sometimes and the other is better other times.

9600XT = 500 MHz core (2gigapixels/sec) / 600 MHz 128 bit memory (9.6 MB/sec)
9800SE = 380 MHz core (1.5 gigapixels/sec) / 680 MHz 256 bit memory (21.7 MB/sec)

While the SE clearly leads in memory bandwidth, I think the newer games rely more on faster core speeds than memory.

 

[LTC8K6]

A 9800SE was not an upper end card unless you could successfully unlock it's other 4 pipes. A 9800pro will kill it unless you successfully mod it.

Most of the last gen high end cards were 128MB or 256MB & 256bit. 9700,9800 & 5900,5950

 

[LTC8K6]

If you are thinking of a 9200 or a 5200 with 256MB of ram, they are both very low end cards which cannot take advantage of the ram.

Basically only the last gen highest end cards could use the extra ram. The 5950 and the 9800XT, I believe. Even then it didn't give much of a boost.

The newer cards can also use it, of course. The X800 and 6800 series.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

The guys at Digit-Life do a monthly (well, semi-monthly) 3Digest of the latest cards. The 9800se (128bit + 256bit) performs poorly in their Doom 3 benches and Far Cry benches. They perform much worse with AA/AF enabled.

 

[BW86]

128mb with 256bit

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
The guys at Digit-Life do a monthly (well, semi-monthly) 3Digest of the latest cards. The 9800se (128bit + 256bit) performs poorly in their Doom 3 benches and Far Cry benches. They perform much worse with AA/AF enabled.

That's because the (unmodded) 9800SE is a piece of crap - it only has 4 pipelines.

But it serves the example of lots of memory bandwidth keeping it level with a card with a much better core - the 9600XT, which runs at 500Mhz.

Especially on higher end cards (ie the 9800 Pro/XT - top of the line from last generation) it is better to have double the bus over double the memory, especially at lower resolutions, where the memory doesn't make a difference, but the memory bandwidth sure does.

And (in the 256MB/128-bit example) even at high res, the card's memory will be too slow to make it perform well, even if it does have double the memory. See the 9600SE 256MB (64-bit memory), which is thoroughly crushed by the 9600 Pro/XT with 128-bit memory.

As BFG said, "width is better than size" (on video cards ).

 

[ZobarStyl]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Width is generally better than size (did I really just say that??? .

Lol that's exactly right BFG, and I don't think there's a less risque way of saying it either! :beer:

 

[Delorian]

All of you who are downing the 9800SE, remember that it wasn't ever meant to be an extremely fast top of the line card. It's price range puts the card in the 9600 pro ->9600 XT category which is where it usually stands in benchmarks. The problem with justifying it's cost in the current market is that the 9600 pro/xt have both dropped a lot since the new gen cards have become available whereas the 9800 SE is still the same price. It WAS priced just in between the pro/xt and came with the possibility of unlocking all 8 pipes. This made it an ok card for the price with an added bonus gamble. Now the price being over what you can get a new 9600 xt for is just simply not worth it.

to answer your original question OP, yes they are all correct as far as the 9800 and older generations go, the bandwidth is worth much more than the ram size

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
The guys at Digit-Life do a monthly (well, semi-monthly) 3Digest of the latest cards. The 9800se (128bit + 256bit) performs poorly in their Doom 3 benches and Far Cry benches. They perform much worse with AA/AF enabled.

The digit life articles seem to show that indeed there is a trend for gems to be LESS dependent on memeory bandwidth and MORE dependent on clock speed.

Doom II the 9800SE trails the 9600s by a wide margin. Unreal II the 9800SE is ahead. Core speed seems to matter more for the new shader intensive games, and memory bandwidth isn't as important. But in the older games memory bandwidth seems to have a much larger effect. As in almost any case, there comes a point of diminishing returns where extra bandwidth doesn't buy you anything and the core simply cannot keep up it's end of things. This is the case with the 9500 non-pros that were 256 bit. Overclock the memory by 10-15% and you get virtually no gain, but a 10% overclock on the core would yield like 8% FPS improvement...very efficient compared to a balanced card where a memory speed overclocks will net closer to a 3 or 4:10 ratio and core clocks ~ a 1:2 ratio (10% core overclock ~5% FPS improvement)

So 256 >128 bit but in some circumstances 256bit won't buy you too much.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Width is generally better than size (did I really just say that??? .

Lol that's exactly right BFG, and I don't think there's a less risque way of saying it either! :beer:

Absolutely correct in either interpretation. 256bit and 128MB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hamster on a wheel with a D-Sub > 128bit and 256MB.

- M4H

 

[Delorian]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Width is generally better than size (did I really just say that??? .

Lol that's exactly right BFG, and I don't think there's a less risque way of saying it either! :beer:

Absolutely correct in either interpretation. 256bit and 128MB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hamster on a wheel with a D-Sub > 128bit and 256MB.

- M4H

I always liked that... hamster on a wheel with a d-sub. lol

 

[ZobarStyl]

Originally posted by: Delorian

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Width is generally better than size (did I really just say that??? .

Lol that's exactly right BFG, and I don't think there's a less risque way of saying it either! :beer:

Absolutely correct in either interpretation. 256bit and 128MB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hamster on a wheel with a D-Sub > 128bit and 256MB.

- M4H

I always liked that... hamster on a wheel with a d-sub. lol

Aww you guys remembered...that's so nice...when did I write that, like June?

 

[JBT]

128 MB with 256 bit will kill a 256MB with 128 bit. Case closed.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl

Originally posted by: Delorian

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Width is generally better than size (did I really just say that??? .

Lol that's exactly right BFG, and I don't think there's a less risque way of saying it either! :beer:

Absolutely correct in either interpretation. 256bit and 128MB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hamster on a wheel with a D-Sub > 128bit and 256MB.

- M4H

I always liked that... hamster on a wheel with a d-sub. lol

Aww you guys remembered...that's so nice...when did I write that, like June?

I forget, but the exact line was more like

"Add in the fact that it's an SE, and you'd be better off with a hamster on a wheel with a D-Sub coming out of it."

- M4H

 

[Delorian]

I think that was exactly the line, I forget who, but someone has it verbatim for their sig

 

[ZobarStyl]

Vshah

 

[sfmedic]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl

Originally posted by: Delorian

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Width is generally better than size (did I really just say that??? .

Lol that's exactly right BFG, and I don't think there's a less risque way of saying it either! :beer:

Absolutely correct in either interpretation. 256bit and 128MB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hamster on a wheel with a D-Sub > 128bit and 256MB.

- M4H

I always liked that... hamster on a wheel with a d-sub. lol

Aww you guys remembered...that's so nice...when did I write that, like June?

I forget, but the exact line was more like

"Add in the fact that it's an SE, and you'd be better off with a hamster on a wheel with a D-Sub coming out of it."

- M4H

So are you saying that a 9800SE is a "hamster on wheel with a D-sub coming out of it"? I noticed that there are three versions of the SE one that is 128bit with 325mhz core and 128mb with all of the memory inline formation;

one that has 256bit 128mb with 325mhz core with the memory in the L formation;

last a 256bit 128mb with 380mhz core with memory in the L formation.

And I like the quote "width is better than size" BFG

 

[Delorian]

Originally posted by: sfmedic

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl

Originally posted by: Delorian

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: ZobarStyl

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Width is generally better than size (did I really just say that??? .

Lol that's exactly right BFG, and I don't think there's a less risque way of saying it either! :beer:

Absolutely correct in either interpretation. 256bit and 128MB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hamster on a wheel with a D-Sub > 128bit and 256MB.

- M4H

I always liked that... hamster on a wheel with a d-sub. lol

Aww you guys remembered...that's so nice...when did I write that, like June?

I forget, but the exact line was more like

"Add in the fact that it's an SE, and you'd be better off with a hamster on a wheel with a D-Sub coming out of it."

- M4H

So are you saying that a 9800SE is a "hamster on wheel with a D-sub coming out of it"? I noticed that there are three versions of the SE one that is 128bit with 325mhz core and 128mb with all of the memory inline formation;

one that has 256bit 128mb with 325mhz core with the memory in the L formation;

last a 256bit 128mb with 380mhz core with memory in the L formation.

And I like the quote "width is better than size" BFG

Yes, the first two are crap and even the last one is detrimented by only having 4 pipes. If it were a $120 or less card I might say go for it, but I wouldn't pay $140 or more for it right now

 

[ZobarStyl]

The original comment I made oh-so long ago was in reference to the x300SE, which some poor schmoe got in a Dell and thought it was just the pwn. We had to tell him that an x300 is just a 9200, and a x300SE is just a 9200SE, and I don't think anyone is going to dispute the sheer crappiness of either.