Radeon9600XT: 128Mb vs 256Mb

  • Thread starter Thread starter \\¯`·.¸biz¸.·´¯/
  • Start date Start date
¯

\\¯`·.¸biz¸.·´¯/

Interesting stuff......

http://tinyurl.com/yqk8j

It seems that the extra 128Mb of memory makes little or no difference.
I've ordered the 256mb card (sapphire) as I got it for the same price as
the 128, hopefully that should make it a bit more 'future-proof' for new
games.

biz
 
\¯`·.¸biz¸.·´¯/ said:
Interesting stuff......

http://tinyurl.com/yqk8j

It seems that the extra 128Mb of memory makes little or no difference.
I've ordered the 256mb card (sapphire) as I got it for the same price as
the 128, hopefully that should make it a bit more 'future-proof' for new
games.
Click to expand...

The reviewers seem blind of the Sapphire Ultimate range - the range where
they add better (silent) cooling to the card.

The extra memory is for loading additional textures, so your games can have
a little more eye-candy - FPS should be reasonably unaffected, as shown.

Ben
 
But the 9600pro/xt gpu doesn't have the power to run at settings that
require the extra ram, i.e. high res with aa/af, to use up ram required for
the extra textures. You have to watch the ram speeds, that's where the
256mb cost is kept closer to 128mb (slower ram).

Mike
 
Mike said:
But the 9600pro/xt gpu doesn't have the power to run at settings that
require the extra ram, i.e. high res with aa/af, to use up ram required
for the extra textures. You have to watch the ram speeds, that's where
the 256mb cost is kept closer to 128mb (slower ram).
Click to expand...

Agreed. RAM speed is a factor - I wonder if the two cards compared had same
clocked memory? Since it was Sapphire, I'd suspect so, but would like ot be
able to explain the consistently lower performance.

Ben
 
Back
Top