• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

1gb ddr4 cards?

Eh, 512mb minimum? :o

256mb is still far sufficient for anywhere up to 1600x1200 i would imagine with medium levels of AA/AF. Only a few games such as Q4, D3 and GRAW use so much texture memory, and even then i guess it only peaks above the extra memory available. :)

Don't get me wrong, i'm all for better visuals, but the games that do go over the 256mb limit don't seem to show it imo. (based on screenshots) :)
 
OzZie said:
Eh, 512mb minimum? :o

256mb is still far sufficient for anywhere up to 1600x1200 i would imagine with medium levels of AA/AF. Only a few games such as Q4, D3 and GRAW use so much texture memory, and even then i guess it only peaks above the extra memory available. :)

Don't get me wrong, i'm all for better visuals, but the games that do go over the 256mb limit don't seem to show it imo. (based on screenshots) :)
Click to expand...

I would say 512 Mb minimum nowadays, why pay >200 pound and not get a 512 Mb version. Also why pay >200 pound and NOT play the games you have mentioned.

Also you cannot see the difference between textures in screenshots BUT you can tell when playing due to less hard drive access for the caching of textures.
 
If you are willing to pay £250> for a graphics card then 512mb would be indeed a good choice to go for in terms of future proofing yourself. However, it isn't at all the minimum requirement to enjoy games in my opinion. 128mb card's are the minimum (afaik) nowadays.

I remember when D3 first got analysed with some of the first 512mb x800xl's and the screenshots showed the smallest increase in texture quality. The only downside with ultra quality with 256mb cards being the stuttering/cacheing of the memory causing slowdown.

It's not like 256mb cards cannot play 99% of games on the market at a decent res and not require more than that. Also, you can still play all of the games mentioned on a 256mb card perfectly fine, but obviously not at ultra settings.

I would say that 256mb is minimum today unless you have lots of cash to spend on the latest hardware. :)
 
Well, really unless you either:

a) have a big moniter, at least 20"
b) "Futureproofing" (lol, as if you can do that...)
c) just want bragging rights
d) an idiot

256Mb is used to about 75% in games that are onyl a few months old (around 6), 512Mb is currently completly useless, Crysis will probably need this much, but that is still far away on the horizon.
 
I'll be a long time before we see "512MB Graphics Card" on a minimum required specifications list, or even recommended. A lot of games are still saying 64MB with DirectX 7 support, even Oblivion's minimum requirements only ask for a 128MB card, with only an X800/6800 as recommended.
 
512mb = minimum ROFLMAO :D
what a load of ****, iirc there were some reviews that put the x188xt 256 v the x1800xt 512 and up to 1024x768 the 256 was as quick if not quicker, above that the extra memory indeed does come in handy! Personally i went from a x1800xt512 to a 7900gt256 have not noticed a difference in performance, if anything the 7900 feels smoother than the 512 (and that's with a healthy overclock)
 
I'd assume most of you here are on comparitivly low-res lcd screens. I'm running a crt @ 2048x1536, so extra memory would help a lot. Looks like the ATI cards are launching at the end of the year as well.
 
utherpendragon said:
I'd assume most of you here are on comparitivly low-res lcd screens. I'm running a crt @ 2048x1536, so extra memory would help a lot. Looks like the ATI cards are launching at the end of the year as well.
Click to expand...


Its still not going to be 512mb

It is a waste of money and its just showing off.
 
LOL 512 minimum, I've yet to see a game where theres a difference between the x1800xt 256mb and x1800xt 512mb, the only thing we can say for sure is that theres a big difference between 128mb and 256mb.
 
Has anyone actually seen reviews comparing 512 Mb and 256 Mb, it is not the framerate that differs, it does reduce stuttering (i.e hard drive access, a good example is FEAR, with that you have to have 1Gb mem and 512 Mb Gfx OR 2Gb mem and 256Mb for smooth gameplay).
 
Seems to be perfectly smooth for me with 1gb of ram and 256mb gfx ram, only games i stuggle on are bf2 when I use textures at high and oblivion which i use top settings for also, but this is due to my 1gb ram I reckon and not my graphics card.
 
Vegeta, not everyone plays at 8x6 resolution though....
FEAR, for sure, gets a lot smoother game play from 2gb ram. If you do not think so, then I suggest you go to a medical professional as you are clearly living a life with visual stutters ;)
 
How do you now what resolution I play at?
I've got a dell 2005fpw.
And theres no need for the attitude neither its pathetic to get pationate about something like this topic but if someone in the street gave you abuse no doubt you'd ignore them but if they said "OI 2GB pc ram and 512MB graphics ram is wasted in most situations!" no doubt you'll go and throttle him lol.
 
Vegeta said:
Seems to be perfectly smooth for me with 1gb of ram and 256mb gfx ram, only games i stuggle on are bf2 when I use textures at high and oblivion which i use top settings for also, but this is due to my 1gb ram I reckon and not my graphics card.
Click to expand...


Same here, although I do want to get 2gb of RAM. I also play at 1680x1050 btw Goksly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom