Ti4200: Faster RAM vs. More RAM

[Jza]

I'm on a budget at the moment and am looking for a nice video card upgrade. I am currently running on a GF2 GTS and I have seen what I've been missing on other ppl's GF4.

I am interested in purchasing a Ti4200 at the moment. But I would like to know which is better:
- 64MB 3.5ns or 128MB 4ns?

What pros and cons will I have for each? Is there much performance difference between the two versions? LMK what I should buy. Thanks!

 

[Ziraku]

I couldn't decide that either so I bought a Gainward GeForce4 PowerPack ! Ultra/650XP Golden Sample. This is a 128Meg card, but the 'golden sample' means gainward guarentees its overclockability. Therefore, you get 128 megs at the speed of the 64 (at least).

It's actually the one Anandtech reviewed a while back.

Here's a link to gainward's info on the card

 

[paladiin]

From what I've read, for today's games the 64MB card will be faster due to it's faster RAM speed. Since most of today's games do not require a large amount of memory on the card, the faster RAM makes it better.

However, this will likely change before you upgrade your video card again. If you plan on having the card for a while, I hear it's better to get the 128MB version. Even though it's a little bit slower than the 64MB version, you'll get better performance in future games that will take advantage of the 128MB of RAM on your card. I understand that Doom III is one such game. Comanche 4 already is running better on cards with 128MB of RAM.

 

[cdub]

A search for keyword 4200 brings up this thread and this thread which will tell you all the semi-correct opinions on the matter. It all comes down to a matter of preference. I got the Gainward Golden Sample 128MB card, but alot of people prefer to save their money and get the 64MB to eke out a few extra clock cycles on the oc potential. Whatever, you should be happy either way.

 

[kami]

Well I got my 128MB MSI GF4 Ti4200 today and right now it runs fine at 275/550...I haven't tried any higher yet. Ran 3dmark a few times and just played WC3 for a couple hours so it's stable. It has Samsung 4ns ram

if you get the 128mb version, you can easily o/c it to the speeds of the 64MB card, and most likely higher. I think it'll be pretty rare for any Ti4200 to not make it to Ti4400 speeds.

 

[Piano Man]

Originally posted by: kami
Well I got my 128MB MSI GF4 Ti4200 today and right now it runs fine at 275/550...I haven't tried any higher yet. Ran 3dmark a few times and just played WC3 for a couple hours so it's stable. It has Samsung 4ns ram

if you get the 128mb version, you can easily o/c it to the speeds of the 64MB card, and most likely higher. I think it'll be pretty rare for any Ti4200 to not make it to Ti4400 speeds.

Why would a 128mb 4ns card most likely o/c higher than a 64MB 3.5ns card? I'm very confused on this.

 

[kami]

Originally posted by: Piano Man

Originally posted by: kami
Well I got my 128MB MSI GF4 Ti4200 today and right now it runs fine at 275/550...I haven't tried any higher yet. Ran 3dmark a few times and just played WC3 for a couple hours so it's stable. It has Samsung 4ns ram

if you get the 128mb version, you can easily o/c it to the speeds of the 64MB card, and most likely higher. I think it'll be pretty rare for any Ti4200 to not make it to Ti4400 speeds.

Why would a 128mb 4ns card most likely o/c higher than a 64MB 3.5ns card? I'm very confused on this.

Well 4ns ram is rated at 500mhz, and Samsung is usually pretty good stuff so 550 doesn't surprise me that much. i think 3.5ns Samsung could do 600mhz, or at least 575 or somewhere in that area. Then again maybe I just got lucky.

 

[JEDI]

There are 2 trains of thought:

1) for those that upgrade their video card once a year to have great fps at 1600x1280x32bit 4xAA: best bang for the buck is the gf4 ti4200 64meg (3.5ns ram)

2) for those that won't upgrade till their card no longer runs games adaquately (25fps @ 1024x768x16 bit, no AA): we go for 128mb because future games will need it. And best bang for the buck is the gf4 ti4400 128mb. this has 3.5ns ram, and only costs $30 more than the ti4200 128mb. but for that $30, u get a higher default clock rate, plus EXTRA overclocking headroom.

Link

 

[BFG10K]

Get the 128 MB card. Most of today's games require 128 MB VRAM to run well and 64 MB cards experience horrible performance problems in certain situations during texture swaps.

Also in a lot of benchmarks like JK2, RTCW and Commanche4 slower 128 MB cards often beat faster 64 MB cards.

 

[Woodchuck2000]

*Agrees with BFG10K*
There are things floating around today that like having 128Mb Vram. The codecreatures benchmark (which is very pretty) requires 128Mb, although it will run on 64Mb given access to enough system ram (taking a performance hit in the process that is)

It's really about performance in future games. Current games run fine on a GF3 ti200. You Don't buy a GF4 to play current games, you buy it to be future proof. So go for the 128Mb version, as it will get used in future.

 

[eboe]

i really think what we need is a gf4200 roundup. there are enough cards on the market now, i think it would be easy for anandtech or t*mshardware to get a sampling from different manufacturers, especially MSI, Gainward, visiontek and eVGA, who all seem to be occupying the lower end of the price spectrum. and it would be vital to get both the 64 and 128 versions, cause there are just no real reviews comparing the performance of the 2 online, since most sites only seem to have either 64 or 128 cards. it sure would help out us bargain shoppers. and throw in an mx460 and a value radeon just for sh*ts and giggles...
but from what i have seen online, comparing oc'ed to 4600 speed 64 mb 4200s vs stock 128mb 4600s, in high resolutions and high AA rates, it seems that the 128 is CHEWING UP the 64mb version. see review here (MSI 64mb). But beware the dodgy labelling technique in the graphs, LOL.
Anyway, this is a call to arms for our favorite hardware sites. Roundup the GF4 Ti4200 PLEASE?

PS - looking to replace my GF2 GTS Pro, i think i can scrape up the extra $30 to go 128, considering i'm an unreal junkie and i'm sure UT2k3 will just suck up the memory... at higher settings, of course