128 or 256MB of video memory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim
  • Start date Start date
J

Jim

I have no idea if there is anything to be gained by getting 256MB of RAM on
a video card? Are there any web pages on this? I do plan on playing Doom3
and HalfLife 2 if that has any bearing on the issue.

Thanks
 
I have no idea if there is anything to be gained by getting 256MB of RAM on
a video card? Are there any web pages on this? I do plan on playing Doom3
and HalfLife 2 if that has any bearing on the issue.
Click to expand...

As HL2 and D3 don't yet exist, how can we speculate on what the high
end requirements are?
 
There are betas of these games and some people may have read articles that I
have not regarding their engines. There are always people who have more
information on specific subjects than I have so I'm hoping they might give
me some insight.
 
Only 9800pro class cards are fast enough to actually use the memory that AA,
AF and large textures will require more than 128mb memory according to what
I've read. I personally wouldn't pay much for the extra memory. Also watch
for slower memory in the 256mb cards.

As for the elusive HL2 and doom3, it's hard to guess. But using reasonable
settings would run fine with 128mb in my guess.

Mike
 
You will NOT be able to play Doom 3 or Half Life 2 on a card that does not
require a fan. They are going to push the card's limits.
 
Only 9800pro class cards are fast enough to actually use the memory that AA,
AF and large textures will require more than 128mb memory according to what
I've read. I personally wouldn't pay much for the extra memory. Also watch
for slower memory in the 256mb cards.
Click to expand...

And even with the 9800Pro - the "boost" is about 3fps, if that.
As for the elusive HL2 and doom3, it's hard to guess. But using reasonable
settings would run fine with 128mb in my guess.
Click to expand...

Yep...
 
If it's insight you want, I'll offer an opinion.
If the ram chips are the same speed on both cards:
A card with 256mb has more memory for textures. It won't have to use as much
system memory for that and video card memory is generally a little faster
than system memory. So, one consideration is how much system ram you have,
and is the cost of upgrading it more than the cost of the extra ram on the
card.
In some older games you probably won't see any difference in frame rates or
slowdowns. The same may go for new games with texture details turned down.
Your cpu speed will probably have a greater effect in these scenarios.
However, in new games with the video card settings tuned to quality and
maybe running some FSAA, and with the game menu settings to full details, a
256mb card should have better frame rates and smoother gameplay than a 128
mb card.
Of course, this is just my opinion.

Gary
 
If it's insight you want, I'll offer an opinion.
If the ram chips are the same speed on both cards:
A card with 256mb has more memory for textures. It won't have to use as much
system memory for that and video card memory is generally a little faster
than system memory. So, one consideration is how much system ram you have,
and is the cost of upgrading it more than the cost of the extra ram on the
card.
In some older games you probably won't see any difference in frame rates or
slowdowns. The same may go for new games with texture details turned down.
Your cpu speed will probably have a greater effect in these scenarios.
However, in new games with the video card settings tuned to quality and
maybe running some FSAA, and with the game menu settings to full details, a
256mb card should have better frame rates and smoother gameplay than a 128
mb card.
Of course, this is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

256mb is a marketing line item. Nothing more.

Just like a 128mb Ti4200 or GF3 card... or the 64 or 128mb GF2 cards.

Read:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-03.html#unreal_tournament_2003
 
256mb is a marketing line item. Nothing more.
Just like a 128mb Ti4200 or GF3 card... or the 64 or 128mb GF2 cards.

Read:
Click to expand...
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-03.html#unreal_tour
nament_2003


Well, that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I've given
out the tom's hardware link enough to know where it is.
If you read my post again, look at the chart on your link and then look at
the charts on this link:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-13.html

You'll see there's a pattern forming.

I said one consideration is the amount of system ram you have. Tom's test
computer had 1GB. I'd say that's plenty. If Tom's only had 256mb, the test
results may have been quite different.
Also, if you take the 2nd chart and increase the resolution and refresh, the
gap between the 128 Pro and the 256 Pro would most likely grow.
It's correct that we don't know what Doom 3, or any unreleased game, will
require for video power, but we can pretty much assume that it'll push a
card harder than games produced 6 months ago.

I'm not sure why you compared the R256 Pro and R128 Pro to a 128mb Ti4200 to
make your point. It would seem to do the opposite. Look at the Call of Duty
chart in the link I gave. Look at the score of the 64mb Ti4200 compared to
the score of the 128mb Ti4200. Huge difference. Now look at the R9500 64mb
and the R9500 128mb on the chart. Quite a margin again.The more you stress
the card, the more the benefit of the extra ram shows. If you wanted to play
CoD with some nice quality graphic settings right now and you had a Ti4200,
wouldn't you prefer the 128mb version (41.4 fps vs. 24.5 fps)? Well, in a
year or so, the Radeon Pros will be in the same boat as the Ti4200's are in
now.

Is a R 9800 Pro 256 nothing more than a marketing line item? Well, not to
me, but it's just my opinion.

Gary
 
DaveW said:
You will NOT be able to play Doom 3 or Half Life 2 on a card that does not
require a fan. They are going to push the card's limits.
Click to expand...

I guess that if you put all settings on LOW then that you can play it
even nicely on a 64-bits FX5200 card.
 
Most games are set to grab a defined amount of system ram, which in no case
that I'm aware increases past 512mb system ram. I've manually edited COD
and RTCW to grab more system ram for the game, even with 512mb it only took
128mb. Doing so stopped a loading stutter at high settings. So I'm not
certain that using 1G system ram is any better than 512nb at the moment. I
know from trying that 512 to 1024mb did nothing for COD...

Mike
 
seta com_hunkMegs "352"
This sets the amount of memory reserved for RTCW.

seta com_soundMegs "32"
This sets the amount of memory reserved for sound.

seta com_zoneMegs "32"
This sets the amount of memory reserved for map and texture loading.



Sorry about the formatting, that's a c&p from an old file I saved. RTCW,
CoD and some other q3 engine games work this way. Edit the cfg file but
remember to back it up first by adding BAK to the file name. Wordpad will
edit it.
Here's the default path to the file, file name at the end:
C:\Program Files\Call of Duty\Main\config.cfg

Cheers,
Mike
 
OK, I found the file a while ago but was not sure it was the right one so
thanks for clearing it up. I will do it now.

Thanks.

Randy
 
Mike P said:
...I know from trying that 512 to 1024mb did nothing for COD...
Click to expand...

Well I'm really glad to hear that. When I went from 256 to 512, the frame
rates in CoD shot up 66% in the timedemo I downloaded. That was with some
pretty high graphics settings. Turning everything down low, it didn't make
much difference.
I was afraid I should bring my ram up to 1024, but didn't want to spend the
extra money right now (since I'll be upgrading my cpu and memory in a couple
months anyway).

So Mike, would those changes in the .cfg give me any better performance?

P4 1.8a @ 2538
Geil PC3500, running dual channel at 2x256mb, 2-2-2-6 timing
Radeon 9800 Pro at 432/398

Thanks
Gary
 
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-03.html#unreal_tour
nament_2003


Well, that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I've given
out the tom's hardware link enough to know where it is.
Click to expand...

Its a lot of peoples opinion...

A 256mb fx5200 or ATI 9200 would not come close the the power of a
64mb Ti4200.
If you read my post again, look at the chart on your link and then look at
the charts on this link:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-13.html

You'll see there's a pattern forming.

I said one consideration is the amount of system ram you have. Tom's test
computer had 1GB. I'd say that's plenty. If Tom's only had 256mb, the test
results may have been quite different.
Click to expand...

I saw the COD in QUALITY mode - yes, with FSAA the extra memory helps
on the TI4200 - but the frame rate becomes unacceptable. With Ti4200
- most people don't use FSAA in current games... the card is too slow.

No FSAA - and both cards in in the 70s (with A P4 3.2Ghz)
I'm not sure why you compared the R256 Pro and R128 Pro to a 128mb Ti4200 to
make your point. It would seem to do the opposite. Look at the Call of Duty
Click to expand...

I didn't comparethe Ti4200 to the ATI - I said "like the Ti4200 -
128mb doesn't do much good - and if it did, the performance would
still be sub-standard" So a 256mb on todays typical cards adds
nothing.
Is a R 9800 Pro 256 nothing more than a marketing line item? Well, not to
me, but it's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Yep it is... your opinion... For others, its pretty much fact. The
TOMS links we've been using are basic - its because hes testing out 40
cards. When the review is for 2-5 cards, then they PUMP it up to the
max. Such as 1600x1200 - so ON other reviews shown - the extra FPS in
minimal.
 
I didn't get any better performance framerate wise but I did get a stop to a
minor stutter that was annoying the hell out of me. It was caused by hdd
thrashing as the settings I had were too high for the 128mb ram the game was
using by default. lso reloading maps is quicker as more is stored in ram.
256mb ram is imho the bare minimum for XP and not enough for gaming. 512 is
a nice amount, I'm not bothering with more unless HL2 or Doom3 struggles
with that, which I doubt...

Mike
 
Hmm, I just tried to run Max Payne 2: the Fall of Max Payne at 1600x1200x32
w/4xAA and 8xAF. The game reported I had insufficient memory on my 9800 Pro
128MB to do this (it said it would require 140MB of vid-memory). I guess there
already ARE games that can
use more than 128MB. I've also noticed incredible slowdowns in Jedi Knight
Outcast when trying to run 4xAA and 1600x1200x32.
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
 
Back
Top