128MB vs 256MB

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kieran Harvey
  • Start date Start date
K

Kieran Harvey

Is it worth the extra cash to get a 256MB version of the 9800 pro rather
than the 128MB version?

Kieran
 
i can't see how any game in the next year or so is going to take advantage
of 256mb of video ram. If there isn't much price diff get the 256mb.
 
i can't see how any game in the next year or so is going to take advantage
of 256mb of video ram.
Click to expand...
AC2 already does, and from what I have read (not from a reliable
source) HL2 will.
 
Half-Life 2 and Doom3 may be some of the few games that hit that size video
memory.

Quake 3 was one of the first games to use more than 32Mb of memory on a 3D
card, in high detail settings.
 
I've yet to see any benchmark that includes any significant difference
between the same cards with different amounts of memory. For example, they
made a 64 MB Radeon 8500 and a 128 MB Radeon 8500 and even with today's
games, I've never seen a benchmark that shows any more than a 5 fps
difference between the two so in my opinion, I don't think it is worth the
significant extra cash that they ask for.

Just as with the Radeon 8500, by the time there are games that put use to
the extra memory, your gpu is too slow to really make it an advantage.

-Tim
 
There is approx £100 difference between the memory sizes on the cards, Just
that £400 for the 256MB version almost breaks the bank :(
 
I believe I read in Tom's Hardware that there is no significant difference
between 128 and 256 in performance in Half Life 2

JK
 
I believe I read in Tom's Hardware that there is no significant difference
between 128 and 256 in performance in Half Life 2
Click to expand...
Did he base that on the full game release or just a benchmark Valve
threw his way?
 
I'm not sure. I just remember reading that no one has demonstrated with
anything available to this point that there is any significant increase in
performance with the extra memory. In some cases the performance is less,
probably due to the greater amount of memory that has to be addressed by the
GPU. That's not to say that it will be different tomorrow with a new game
release.

JK
 
Tim Miser said:
I've yet to see any benchmark that includes any significant difference
between the same cards with different amounts of memory. For example, they
made a 64 MB Radeon 8500 and a 128 MB Radeon 8500 and even with today's
games, I've never seen a benchmark that shows any more than a 5 fps
difference between the two so in my opinion, I don't think it is worth the
significant extra cash that they ask for.

Just as with the Radeon 8500, by the time there are games that put use to
the extra memory, your gpu is too slow to really make it an advantage.

-Tim
Click to expand...

I think Mr. Miser's point is most telling. Not only well there
be faster GPUs but other advances (shaders, transport schemes,
texture support, ect...) well likely be in play when games that
realy need more mem are out.

Ken
 
I can also say from all benchmarks I've seen, there has never been any
significant difference between cards of the same speed but different amounts
of memory. Most prebuilt systems however advertise graphics cards by amount
of memory rather than by brand, as it seems to be what most people
understand. I think cards with extra memory are more usually produced to
put in these systems than for the benefit of enthusiasts.
 
Andy said:
I can also say from all benchmarks I've seen, there has never been any
significant difference between cards of the same speed but different
amounts of memory. Most prebuilt systems however advertise graphics
cards by amount of memory rather than by brand, as it seems to be what
most people understand. I think cards with extra memory are more usually
produced to put in these systems than for the benefit of enthusiasts.
Click to expand...

It's all about the number of textures you can squeeze in, you don't really
need memory to do computation. It's all about eye candy.

Ben
 
Back
Top