Video memory - do I need more?

[Jeff7181]

I'm curious, would a video card with more memory be better for me? I have a 24 inch monitor and I prefer to play at native resolution which is 1920x1200. I also like AA and AF... I prefer to use at least 2XAA, preferably 4X. Currently I have an 8800GT with 512 MB of memory on it... I'm thinking about an upgrade soon after the new nVidia cards come out and push prices on other models down. I don't have a SLI motherboard so that's not an option. I'm currently looking at the 9800GTX+ to replace my 8800GT and I'm wondering if I should look for a 1 GB card.

 

[OCGuy]

9800GTX+ would be almost a sideways-step.


I would consider the original gtx260 if your power supply could handle it. That would give you the most noticeable upgrade from your current card for the least amount of $$$.

As a plus, it has 896MB of VRAM.

 

[Tempered81]

you need a 4870 512, gtx260, 4870 1gb, or gtx260 216

 

[SlowSpyder]

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3415&p=3

That is AT's review of the 4870 1GB. One of the cards it is tested against is the 4870 512MB, and they do test it at your resolution at 4xAA/16xAF. So, you can see how 1GB vs. 512MB plays out at your resolution on that card, and probably at least get an idea of how much the extra frame buffer matters.

If you're going to upgrade, as others said get an upgrade that you'll notice, get a 4870/GTX260 or GTX280. The 9800 is more of a side-grade then upgrade.

 

[AzN]

9800gtx isn't too far off from 260 though. Lot of people are mistaken that 260 is so much faster which isn't true. Maybe 5-10fps faster at best. Much faster in 2560x1600 with AA maybe.

I think 512mb is enough for now but you could easily need more especially with AA at that resolution.

8800gt to 9800gtx+ would be almost the same upgrade as 9800gtx+ to GTX260

15-20% bump. Not much.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3415&p=3

That is AT's review of the 4870 1GB. One of the cards it is tested against is the 4870 512MB, and they do test it at your resolution at 4xAA/16xAF. So, you can see how 1GB vs. 512MB plays out at your resolution on that card, and probably at least get an idea of how much the extra frame buffer matters.

If you're going to upgrade, as others said get an upgrade that you'll notice, get a 4870/GTX260 or GTX280. The 9800 is more of a side-grade then upgrade.

The downside to the 4870 is that it uses 30% more power when idle. I do a lot of things with the computer besides game, so idle power consumption matters to me. I don't like the idea of all that extra electricity being used and heat being pumped into my room.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I'm curious, would a video card with more memory be better for me? I have a 24 inch monitor and I prefer to play at native resolution which is 1920x1200. I also like AA and AF... I prefer to use at least 2XAA, preferably 4X. Currently I have an 8800GT with 512 MB of memory on it... I'm thinking about an upgrade soon after the new nVidia cards come out and push prices on other models down. I don't have a SLI motherboard so that's not an option. I'm currently looking at the 9800GTX+ to replace my 8800GT and I'm wondering if I should look for a 1 GB card.

Don't bother with another 512MB card, for 1920 with AA you'll definitely want a GTX 260, GTX 260 c216 or 4870 1GB at the minimum. 512MB simply is simply not enough for an increasing number of games at that resolution, especially if you want AA:

Fallout 3, Far Cry 2

Keep in mind, the 512MB and 1024MB versions of the 4870 are identical in every way except for amount of VRAM, so any differences in performance will be direct result of frame buffer size.

Well worth the upgrade though, even though 512MB parts like the 9800GTX+ or 512MB 4850/4870 may not be too far off on paper in FPS, you should most definitely notice an improvement in perceived gaming smoothness.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3415&p=3

That is AT's review of the 4870 1GB. One of the cards it is tested against is the 4870 512MB, and they do test it at your resolution at 4xAA/16xAF. So, you can see how 1GB vs. 512MB plays out at your resolution on that card, and probably at least get an idea of how much the extra frame buffer matters.

If you're going to upgrade, as others said get an upgrade that you'll notice, get a 4870/GTX260 or GTX280. The 9800 is more of a side-grade then upgrade.

The downside to the 4870 is that it uses 30% more power when idle. I do a lot of things with the computer besides game, so idle power consumption matters to me. I don't like the idea of all that extra electricity being used and heat being pumped into my room.

Yep. The auto-underclock of the core in non-3D apps on GT200 is pretty nice.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I'm curious, would a video card with more memory be better for me? I have a 24 inch monitor and I prefer to play at native resolution which is 1920x1200. I also like AA and AF... I prefer to use at least 2XAA, preferably 4X. Currently I have an 8800GT with 512 MB of memory on it... I'm thinking about an upgrade soon after the new nVidia cards come out and push prices on other models down. I don't have a SLI motherboard so that's not an option. I'm currently looking at the 9800GTX+ to replace my 8800GT and I'm wondering if I should look for a 1 GB card.

Don't bother with another 512MB card, for 1920 with AA you'll definitely want a GTX 260, GTX 260 c216 or 4870 1GB at the minimum. 512MB simply is simply not enough for an increasing number of games at that resolution, especially if you want AA:

Fallout 3, Far Cry 2

Keep in mind, the 512MB and 1024MB versions of the 4870 are identical in every way except for amount of VRAM, so any differences in performance will be direct result of frame buffer size.

Well worth the upgrade though, even though 512MB parts like the 9800GTX+ or 512MB 4850/4870 may not be too far off on paper in FPS, you should most definitely notice an improvement in perceived gaming smoothness.

I love how you hand pick benches. That looks like an anomaly/user error than anything else.

if you look at the 512mb 9800gtx it doesn't dip into 8fps which has worse vram management than ATI cards.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Azn
I love how you hand pick benches. That looks like an anomaly/user error than anything else.

if you look at the 512mb 9800gtx it doesn't dip into 8fps which has worse vram management than ATI cards.

More hand-picked?

I could go on but is there really a point with you? Not likely.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3415&p=3

That is AT's review of the 4870 1GB. One of the cards it is tested against is the 4870 512MB, and they do test it at your resolution at 4xAA/16xAF. So, you can see how 1GB vs. 512MB plays out at your resolution on that card, and probably at least get an idea of how much the extra frame buffer matters.

If you're going to upgrade, as others said get an upgrade that you'll notice, get a 4870/GTX260 or GTX280. The 9800 is more of a side-grade then upgrade.

The downside to the 4870 is that it uses 30% more power when idle. I do a lot of things with the computer besides game, so idle power consumption matters to me. I don't like the idea of all that extra electricity being used and heat being pumped into my room.

where do you live?

it is Winter in my house it is an advantage it have Crossfire 4870-X3
- i am a little cold sitting by my GTX 280 right now and and looking forward to switching it out soon for X-3
[i am benchmarking right now]

Seriously, if you are looking for a decent UPgrade over your current GPU, pick 260GTX or 4870/1GB
- even 4870/512 will be noticeably faster than your current card

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Azn
I love how you hand pick benches. That looks like an anomaly/user error than anything else.

if you look at the 512mb 9800gtx it doesn't dip into 8fps which has worse vram management than ATI cards.

More hand-picked?

I could go on but is there really a point with you? Not likely.

Yup hand picked. Look at your first link minimum and bit-tech's minimum on 4870 512mb. Quite a big difference there don't you think? :gift:

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Azn
Yup hand picked. Look at your first link minimum and bit-tech's minimum on 4870 512mb. Quite a big difference there don't you think? :gift:

Is this a joke? I'm going to guess they both didn't use the standard looped demo that doesn't exist for Fallout 3, which would result in different results between review sites.....

Also its quite possible that 8FPS is an anomaly, as recording with FRAPs can result in frame drops at the start and stop of a bench run, however, its not enough to change the average FPS which clearly illustrates a significant difference in performance due to VRAM.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Azn
Yup hand picked. Look at your first link minimum and bit-tech's minimum on 4870 512mb. Quite a big difference there don't you think? :gift:

Is this a joke? I'm going to guess they both didn't use the standard looped demo that doesn't exist for Fallout 3, which would result in different results between review sites.....

Also its quite possible that 8FPS is an anomaly, as recording with FRAPs can result in frame drops at the start and stop of a bench run, however, its not enough to change the average FPS which clearly illustrates a significant difference in performance due to VRAM.

That's exactly what I was getting at. 8fps minimum is a joke. 60fps average isn't enough? Since when? How many more fps do you you need chizow?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Azn
9800gtx isn't too far off from 260 though. Lot of people are mistaken that 260 is so much faster which isn't true. Maybe 5-10fps faster at best. Much faster in 2560x1600 with AA maybe.

I think 512mb is enough for now but you could easily need more especially with AA at that resolution.

8800gt to 9800gtx+ would be almost the same upgrade as 9800gtx+ to GTX260

15-20% bump. Not much.

260 is MUCH better than the 9800GTX, especially since the recent driver updates.

The 9800GTX is more along the lines of the 4850.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Azn
9800gtx isn't too far off from 260 though. Lot of people are mistaken that 260 is so much faster which isn't true. Maybe 5-10fps faster at best. Much faster in 2560x1600 with AA maybe.

I think 512mb is enough for now but you could easily need more especially with AA at that resolution.

8800gt to 9800gtx+ would be almost the same upgrade as 9800gtx+ to GTX260

15-20% bump. Not much.

260 is MUCH better than the 9800GTX, especially since the recent driver updates.

The 9800GTX is more along the lines of the 4850.

How so? Just because it has more vram? GTX 260 processing wise, texture fillrate wise it is only on par with 9800gtx if not a little lower. I has a bit more bandwidth and more vram. Other wise I don't see GTX260 being that much better unless Nvidia is sabotaging the G92 series for GTX 2 series. I would like to see a 1gig 9800gtx go against 260gtx. I bet you the performance difference isn't all that much if none at all.

 

[Tempered81]

poll for gtx 260 vs. hd 4870. Ironically it's tied at 34-34 votes right now:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=213028

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Azn
9800gtx isn't too far off from 260 though. Lot of people are mistaken that 260 is so much faster which isn't true. Maybe 5-10fps faster at best. Much faster in 2560x1600 with AA maybe.

I think 512mb is enough for now but you could easily need more especially with AA at that resolution.

8800gt to 9800gtx+ would be almost the same upgrade as 9800gtx+ to GTX260

15-20% bump. Not much.

260 is MUCH better than the 9800GTX, especially since the recent driver updates.

The 9800GTX is more along the lines of the 4850.

How so? Just because it has more vram? GTX 260 processing wise, texture fillrate wise it is only on par with 9800gtx if not a little lower. I has a bit more bandwidth and more vram. Other wise I don't see GTX260 being that much better unless Nvidia is sabotaging the G92 series for GTX 2 series. I would like to see a 1gig 9800gtx go against 260gtx. I bet you the performance difference isn't all that much if none at all.

Might want to check out Anandtech's review. And these are with launch drivers, and GT200 has gotten 20%+ better in some games since then.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3334&p=12

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Azn
9800gtx isn't too far off from 260 though. Lot of people are mistaken that 260 is so much faster which isn't true. Maybe 5-10fps faster at best. Much faster in 2560x1600 with AA maybe.

I think 512mb is enough for now but you could easily need more especially with AA at that resolution.

8800gt to 9800gtx+ would be almost the same upgrade as 9800gtx+ to GTX260

15-20% bump. Not much.

260 is MUCH better than the 9800GTX, especially since the recent driver updates.

The 9800GTX is more along the lines of the 4850.

How so? Just because it has more vram? GTX 260 processing wise, texture fillrate wise it is only on par with 9800gtx if not a little lower. I has a bit more bandwidth and more vram. Other wise I don't see GTX260 being that much better unless Nvidia is sabotaging the G92 series for GTX 2 series. I would like to see a 1gig 9800gtx go against 260gtx. I bet you the performance difference isn't all that much if none at all.

Might want to check out Anandtech's review. And these are with launch drivers, and GT200 has gotten 20%+ better in some games since then.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3334&p=12

Why handpick at 2560x1600 resolution with AA when how much more vram is a big issue at this resolution? Try some lower resolution or without AA and you will see 50% better frame rate difference to 10%.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14934/10

20% better? That's quite an accomplishment. Would you mind linking launch drivers vs recent drivers showing this?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Azn
That's exactly what I was getting at. 8fps minimum is a joke. 60fps average isn't enough? Since when? How many more fps do you you need chizow?

62FPS is just fine as that's what you'd expect from a high-end part you just bought, but when you're getting 35FPS similar to what you got from your old mid-range part due solely to VRAM then no, its not enough.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Azn
20% better? That's quite an accomplishment. Would you mind linking launch drivers vs recent drivers showing this?

Hardware Infos Comparison

Some games showed much more than 20% difference. Without getting into all the details, the GTX 260 is always faster than the 9800GTX+ despite theoreticals, especially in cases where the 9800GTX+ was deficient (VRAM, bandwidth, AA).

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Azn
9800gtx isn't too far off from 260 though. Lot of people are mistaken that 260 is so much faster which isn't true. Maybe 5-10fps faster at best. Much faster in 2560x1600 with AA maybe.

I think 512mb is enough for now but you could easily need more especially with AA at that resolution.

8800gt to 9800gtx+ would be almost the same upgrade as 9800gtx+ to GTX260

15-20% bump. Not much.

260 is MUCH better than the 9800GTX, especially since the recent driver updates.

The 9800GTX is more along the lines of the 4850.

How so? Just because it has more vram? GTX 260 processing wise, texture fillrate wise it is only on par with 9800gtx if not a little lower. I has a bit more bandwidth and more vram. Other wise I don't see GTX260 being that much better unless Nvidia is sabotaging the G92 series for GTX 2 series. I would like to see a 1gig 9800gtx go against 260gtx. I bet you the performance difference isn't all that much if none at all.

Might want to check out Anandtech's review. And these are with launch drivers, and GT200 has gotten 20%+ better in some games since then.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3334&p=12

Why handpick at 2560x1600 resolution with AA when how much more vram is a big issue at this resolution? Try some lower resolution or without AA and you will see 50% better frame rate difference to 10%.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14934/10

20% better? That's quite an accomplishment. Would you mind linking launch drivers vs recent drivers showing this?

This is from the review I posted. The high rez has the graph, right under is lower.


1600X1200:

GTX260: 84.7

9800GTX: 64.5


As far as driver optimization, google "Big Bang II".

 

[Jeff7181]

I'm going to tack this on here and hopefully no one will mind...

I just got Fallout 3 (Steam holiday sale ftw) and I've played for a few hours up to level 5 or 6 now. I REALLY enjoy the game, but it runs poorly. I haven't actually checked the frame rates, but I went into a sewer for a quest and there are some areas that bring the action to a screeching hault. I'd estimate 2-3 FPS when there's a "heat wave effect" in front of me. I probably average somewhere between 20-30 otherwise... but man was that annoying. I almost died a few times because it's impossible to aim accurately at a moving target at 2 or 3 frames per second. I'm rather amazed at the benchmarks results I see for Fallout 3... GTX280's getting 80+ fps average at 1920x1200 with 4XAA and 8XAF... is that accurate? Could I expect at least 60 fps average with a GTX260?

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Azn
20% better? That's quite an accomplishment. Would you mind linking launch drivers vs recent drivers showing this?

Hardware Infos Comparison

Some games showed much more than 20% difference. Without getting into all the details, the GTX 260 is always faster than the 9800GTX+ despite theoreticals, especially in cases where the 9800GTX+ was deficient (VRAM, bandwidth, AA).

It was a little faster but not much. considering GTX 260 has a whole more bandwidth it should have been that much more faster with AA in the first place.

I just wonder if Nvidia putting G92 series in the back seat with optimization just to sell their GTX series. Any info comparing 9800gtx with old and new drivers?

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Azn
9800gtx isn't too far off from 260 though. Lot of people are mistaken that 260 is so much faster which isn't true. Maybe 5-10fps faster at best. Much faster in 2560x1600 with AA maybe.

I think 512mb is enough for now but you could easily need more especially with AA at that resolution.

8800gt to 9800gtx+ would be almost the same upgrade as 9800gtx+ to GTX260

15-20% bump. Not much.

260 is MUCH better than the 9800GTX, especially since the recent driver updates.

The 9800GTX is more along the lines of the 4850.

How so? Just because it has more vram? GTX 260 processing wise, texture fillrate wise it is only on par with 9800gtx if not a little lower. I has a bit more bandwidth and more vram. Other wise I don't see GTX260 being that much better unless Nvidia is sabotaging the G92 series for GTX 2 series. I would like to see a 1gig 9800gtx go against 260gtx. I bet you the performance difference isn't all that much if none at all.

Might want to check out Anandtech's review. And these are with launch drivers, and GT200 has gotten 20%+ better in some games since then.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3334&p=12

Why handpick at 2560x1600 resolution with AA when how much more vram is a big issue at this resolution? Try some lower resolution or without AA and you will see 50% better frame rate difference to 10%.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14934/10

20% better? That's quite an accomplishment. Would you mind linking launch drivers vs recent drivers showing this?

This is from the review I posted. The high rez has the graph, right under is lower.


1600X1200:

GTX260: 84.7

9800GTX: 64.5


As far as driver optimization, google "Big Bang II".

And look at techreport's review which I linked to.

1680x1050

GTX 260 65.4fps
9800gtx 58 fps

So Big Bang doesn't apply to G92 series?