Author Topic: 128 meg video cards (Read 987 times)

Pongo · « **on:** March 07, 2005, 04:55:45 PM »

Could you tell when running AH2 that you had a 256 meg card vs a 128 meg video card?

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 07, 2005, 05:32:19 PM »

I have a 128 MB card. Works fine. Not that 256 MB wouldnt be better. But I get by ok.

Octavius · « **Reply #2 on:** March 07, 2005, 06:43:55 PM »

I very recently bought an X800 Pro 256mb (VIVO). Flashed it to an X800XT 256.

Former card was a 9600XT 128mb

Biggest difference I would say is the flawless framerate. With animated water enabled it never drops below 50. Usually disable it because I cannot judge my position relative to the water when looking down.

I have 1gig of system ram, so I would precache everything in there. It isn't the best grade ram and has CAS of 3. The first thing I tried when running AH2 with the x800 was precache everything in video memory. I run textures at 1024 and I lose the option of precaching everything in vidmem. At 512 it is fine. I don't think that's a problem with the x800 though. I haven't seen it use more than 75mb at any point, even in heavily congested areas. If a texture isn't on hand, it loads so quick I can't really notice.

Dunno. I don't think many games are taking advantage of the 256mb at this time. I could be wrong.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 07, 2005, 08:43:45 PM »

Something is making use of it, or they wouldnt be putting together those new 512MB video cards. Brrrrrr. I'm still getting used to the idea of 256MB on a video card. I've owned many a computer with less memory. And not that long ago.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #4 on:** March 07, 2005, 09:03:03 PM »

The amount of video ram being reported takes into account compression of the textures (video cards have hardware compression/decompression). They have to be uncompressed when in use, so multiple that figure by about 4 to get an idea of how much video ram will be used or can be used if all the textures loaded needed to be used in any given frame.
Add anti-aliasing to the equation and the amount of video ram needed escalates like crazy.

The video ram amount cannot be trusted too much as the video card companies report what they want, when they want.

OOZ662 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 07, 2005, 09:50:37 PM »

Of course, you need a system that can keep up with the video card. my system isn't to great and has a few processes I haven't bothered to look up in the background. I stay in the mid teens to high 50s on my 128.

LePaul · « **Reply #6 on:** March 07, 2005, 10:02:00 PM »

I've yet to hear anyone wish they had less video ram.

Im curious how the dual-video card setups fly along (SLI)

Pongo · « **Reply #7 on:** March 07, 2005, 10:19:39 PM »

The price of the video card neatly doubles when you get the 256 meg versions. I was just wondering if there is any real advantage to having it. The only reply here that really addresses the issue(except skuzzy whom may address it but Im not sure) is comparing a 9600 with 128 to an 800 series with 256. Hardly a reasonable comparison as to what difference the amount of RAM made to the upgrade.

Too bad I cant buy a 128 card and add another 128 if I think I could use it.

LePaul · « **Reply #8 on:** March 07, 2005, 10:51:03 PM »

Well think of it this way, Pongo...there used to be cards like that. I think some of the old Diamond cards had 4mb and you could upgrade them to 8mb. But the ram was unique, and if you did decide to upgrade it, the ram cost more than the inital purchase of the video card

Im looking to do a 256mb card in the near future. As more and more of them hit the market, Im sure more and more games will utilize them. Much as they were slow to use 128mb cards when they first came out

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 07, 2005, 11:49:19 PM »

Just make sure you research the card you buy thoroughly. Because the RAM is arguably the most expensive part of the card, especially when you start talking about 256 MB of it. Various manufacturers have done everything from using 64 bit bus sizes to using slower RAM in order to drop costs. Often so much so, that the 256MB versions become slower than their 128MB counterparts. The more these cards get into the mainstream, the less this will happen I'm sure, but just make sure you check it out first.

Pongo · « **Reply #10 on:** March 08, 2005, 01:59:01 AM »

thnks guys.

Schutt · « **Reply #11 on:** March 08, 2005, 02:43:53 AM »

When the 128 has substancially higher speed ram its better. Considering with the trerrain upgraids we get the 256 will get some use, but only worth it if its fast.
I think skuzzy posted a calculation of necessary video ram for certain settings of texture size and anti alialising, but it did not figure in texture compression.
My card driver lists something like 140 MB in use, with 512 texture size, so i would take a gues that does not fit in 128 MB cards, but only barely so the hit should not be to big.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #12 on:** March 08, 2005, 07:48:30 AM »

More ram does not equal better performance and can hurt performance. Like Schutt said, typically 256MB video cards use much slower ram. Now this is not so true with the latest generation of high end cards (and only the high end cards), but anything under the top of the line video cards with 256MB of ram will probably use much slower memory.
The lower memory speed will dramatically impact performance of a video card.

Estes · « **Reply #13 on:** March 08, 2005, 09:46:11 AM »

Skuzzy..By top - o - the line you mean Radeon X800XT 256... Or Nvidia 6800 GT? (Thats the newest Gforce right?)

Those would have the faster 256 megs of ram correct?

Pongo · « **Reply #14 on:** March 08, 2005, 10:18:38 AM »

Assuming equal memory speeds, will the extra 128 be used by AH skuzzy?