• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

which is more useful?

This question is way to general to answer, but I prioritize having a faster gpu core over more memory. It also depends on what game you're playing.
 
The resolution you play at is important to determine which would actually perform better. Higher resolutions make use of more Vram.
 
if you are willing to overclock slightly you could have the more ram and the higher clock speeds, factory overclocks tend to be very conservative, so you could easily match them
 
Ok, on a more technical side, i understand what a faster clock speed would do for a video card. What would more ram do for a video card?

Since video cards don't have upgradable compnents (you generally cant increase the ram size as an end user) as a mfg wouldn't you optimize the ram size and clock speed to make the most use of the gpu and its clock speed based on the design of the board they sit on?
Overclocking the speed of both the GPU and its ram would increase the number of operations it can handle making it slightly better.

So, what don't i know about the function of vram?
Is there a serious lag accessing game video information from the system ram?
 
Normally when I hear people asking these questions, they are comparing a $50 card with 1GB of ram to some $200 card with 512MB of ram (or similar). In these cases, GPU over ram for sure.

when looking at ram vs factory overclocking of the same GPU, then RAM wins.
 
what about an 8600gt with 1gb of vram or an 8800gt 256mb? lol, neither would be worth a poop for modern games. the only thing dumber then buying an 8800gt 256mb was buying two of them for sli. some idiots did just that though.
 
Last edited:
560 ti 2gb is a bit expensive, you could get an MSI 6950 2gb for the same price, and unlock and OC it to 6970 speeds.
 
Especially if you are gaming at 1920x1080p, 1gb is enough. IMO
I tend to agree with this conclusion, and this was the general thinking in forums until AMD launched more 2gb cards. The extra memory does come in handy in situations like eyefinity and 2560x1600, and adding AA.

Palit GeForce GTX 560 2 GB

Palit's GeForce GTX 560 is the only GTX 560 we reviewed today that comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory vs. 1 GB on the reference design. Unfortunately the memory capacity increase can not result in any significant performance difference in our testing. It seems that 1 GB of memory is enough for all our games at resolutions up to 2560x1600. Even if there was a difference at more demanding settings, it would make no sense for a card like the GTX 560. Even if you could somehow crank up settings to see a difference between 2 GB and 1 GB you would also end up with unplayable framerates due to the limited processing power of the GTX 560 graphics processor. This does not mean that the GTX 560 is a slow card, it simply means that the optimum memory configuration for it is 1 GB. Actually I could imagine a hypothetical 768 MB variant end up being competitive considering the reduced price it would come at.
Click to expand...
 
Hum

Thanks for the replies.

I ended up ordering the MSI N560GTX-Ti Hawk.
Its already clocked at 950 and supposedly will go to around 1040 with the included software. I may try to push that even further once i resolve a few other issue im having.

I'm sure i will regret the lack of memory later. Buyer's remorse. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top