£200 for a graphics card, recomendations please

easyrider · 14 Jun 2006 at 14:16

The 512mb helps with ultra high texture settings.There is pleanty of stuff dotted about the web that supports this.

Darkwave · 14 Jun 2006 at 19:07

PinkFloyd said:
I suppose the lack of difference between 256 and 512 brings about the question on whether its even necessaryor whether it just a marketing gimmic. Wouldlike to see 128vs256vs512

It's a marketing gimmick, it has been for a long while now.

There's a very tangeable difference between 128MB and 256MB of video memory, anyone who plays Battlefield 2 and has done such a video upgrade will tell you that much, but the benchmarks speak for themselves on wether 512MB is useful even in resolutions of 2048x1536 with 4x full-screen antialiasing enabled.

The latest gimmick though is Nvidia's 7950GX2 having 1GB of video memory. What a complete and utter waste of time, effort, money, you name it. :rolleyes:

easyrider said:
The 512mb helps with ultra high texture settings.There is pleanty of stuff dotted about the web that supports this.

Well, as usual when the 256MB vs. 512MB debate comes up, I am the only one posting links and the pro-512MB camp are just saying "it's all over the web." Not taking a dig at you, but it wouldn't hurt to provide some links that show a true contrary to the ones I have provided.

Never seen a pro-512MB person post benchmarks yet, and I would be happy to be proven wrong on this issue as it would give me something to work towards upgrading in the near-future. As it stands I bought my current card to play Oblivion, and since 512MB really doesn't make a difference, I feel like I have nowhere else in the market to go at the moment until AMD introduce the upcoming price-cuts.

PinkFloyd · 14 Jun 2006 at 19:26

Exsomnis said:
It's a marketing gimmick, it has been for a long while now. There's a very tangeable difference between 128MB and 256MB of video memory

There are exceptions though. I had to laugh at a mate who recently bought a 256mb 6600le thinking it would be a lot faster than a 6600gt....

I was on the 512MB is better at high res bandwagon until I saw that anandtech benchmark. I was on the bandwagon as everyone was saying more is better at high res, I imagine this originally came about when the top cards where the X1800XT and the 7800GTX. the X1800XT was far better at high res and AA, hence people assumed it was the memory. turns out its just a better design

easyrider · 14 Jun 2006 at 19:40

Exsomnis said:
Well, as usual when the 256MB vs. 512MB debate comes up, I am the only one posting links and the pro-512MB camp are just saying "it's all over the web." Not taking a dig at you, but it wouldn't hurt to provide some links that show a true contrary to the ones I have provided.

Video Card Memory Analysis: 256MB vs. 512MB

The 512 MB card comes out on top at higher res.

PinkFloyd · 14 Jun 2006 at 20:06

easyrider said:
Video Card Memory Analysis: 256MB vs. 512MB

The 512 MB card comes out on top at higher res.

Interesting....

What could have caused 2 differentsets of benchmarks to show completely the opposite? Personally I'd be more inclined to believe the Anandtech review.....

Has anyone had both an X1800XT 256 and an X1800XT 512?

Darkwave · 14 Jun 2006 at 20:57

easyrider said:
Video Card Memory Analysis: 256MB vs. 512MB

The 512 MB card comes out on top at higher res.

If you would direct your attention to the previous page, I used those exact same benchmarks myself to make my point, which you have just made for me again.

According to those benchmarks, you get: -

1. a.) An extra 1.5fps in Lost Coast in 1600x1200, with 4xAA and 8xAF, and without HDR.
1. b.) An extra 2.1fps in Lost Coast in 1600x1200, with 4xAA and 8xAF, and with full HDR.

2.) An extra 3.4fps in Quake IV in 1600x1200, ultra quality with 4xAA and 8xAF.

3.) An extra 1.0fps in F.E.A.R. in 1600x1200, maximum quality with 4xAA and 16xAF.

Now, I thank you very much for providing evidence to back up my point, but I asked if you had any benchmarks that showed 512MB of video RAM actually making a difference over 256MB of video RAM. Unfortunately, I am yet to see it.

easyrider · 14 Jun 2006 at 21:06

The difference in price between a 512 mb card and 256mb card is not that vast.

And games at ultra quality pull ahead with the 512mb card at all resolutions.

If spending 165 on a new x1800 XT I would get the 512 mb version for the extra 40 quid just so its helps in future games.

double the ram does not mean double the performance or double the price but we all know that don't we.

Darkwave · 14 Jun 2006 at 21:11

So you're saying that an extra £40 is worth it for...

1. a.) An extra 1.5fps in Lost Coast in 1600x1200, with 4xAA and 8xAF, and without HDR.
1. b.) An extra 2.1fps in Lost Coast in 1600x1200, with 4xAA and 8xAF, and with full HDR.

2.) An extra 3.4fps in Quake IV in 1600x1200, ultra quality with 4xAA and 8xAF.

3.) An extra 1.0fps in F.E.A.R. in 1600x1200, maximum quality with 4xAA and 16xAF.

...are you? Some might call that a bit crackers, or even that you've fallen for the marketing gimmick.

From where I am standing, my X1800XT 256MB performs pretty much exactly on-par with an X1800XT 512MB, and the Futuremark ORB whole-heartedly agrees.

If I had bought an X1800XT 512MB, I would be feeling rather ripped off right about now.

Maybe all that video memory will be useful next gen, but right now, it's about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

easyrider · 14 Jun 2006 at 21:15

Exsomnis said:
So you're saying that an extra £40 is worth it for...

1. a.) An extra 1.5fps in Lost Coast in 1600x1200, with 4xAA and 8xAF, and without HDR.
1. b.) An extra 2.1fps in Lost Coast in 1600x1200, with 4xAA and 8xAF, and with full HDR.

2.) An extra 3.4fps in Quake IV in 1600x1200, ultra quality with 4xAA and 8xAF.

3.) An extra 1.0fps in F.E.A.R. in 1600x1200, maximum quality with 4xAA and 16xAF

...are you? Some might call that a bit crackers.

Thats with todays games.
Games will utilise the extra ram in the future.
40 quid is nothing so not really crackers.
You choose the one game to back your arguement.I suggest you look at the full picture.

Look at the results in fear:

"Now we are reaching the same levels of memory usage as HL2 in 2048x1536 with everything maxed out. Though the results show huge performance differences they simply cannot fully describe what I felt while playing the game. With 256Mb it was absolutely unplayable with stuttering at every turn, sometimes the screen would not refresh for half a second. This was blatant cache thrashing in action. In comparison the 512Mb card was behaving as it should, no stuttering at all. The average frame rate was low and it wasn’t very enjoyable, but it was a thousand times better than with the 256Mb card. The average frame rates for both cards are as follows:

256MB: 12.9 fps
512MB: 24.6 fps

That’s a 90.7% increase! F.E.A.R has shown itself to be the most demanding game for memory requirements out of all the games here. Add to this the intense use of pixel shader operations and you can easily see why it brings even the most high end machines to their knees".

A 7950 for 400 quid with 1 gig of ram is crackers but not spending an extra 40 quid to cover future events in games.

Darkwave · 14 Jun 2006 at 21:19

easyrider said:
Thats with todays games.
Games will utilise the extra ram in the future.

Yes, that is with today's games. I thought we were talking about Half Life 2: Lost Coast, Quake IV, and F.E.A.R. here. After all, you were the one who re-introduced those benchmarks to this thread after I'd already posted them.

So thank you for making my point for me, but I'm still looking for benchmarks that show 512MB video RAM making a difference. :confused:

easyrider said:
40 quid is nothing so not really crackers.Look at the results with the extra ram at lower resolutions.

I don't know about you, but £40 is about fourty pounds more than nothing to me. £40 could get me a great night out at a gig in Manchester with accomodation, a nice evening with a lady, a couple of good nights out with the lads, you name it. Why would I spend that much money to gain 1fps in F.E.A.R.? :confused:

easyrider said:
A 7950 for 400 quid with 1 gig of ram is crackers but not spending an extra 40 quid to cover future events in games.

I already said future games might utilise 512MB RAM, but that it has been and is currently nothing more than a marketing gimmick and is not even used. So, err... Yeah thanks for making my point for me, this is kind of odd. :confused:

easyrider · 14 Jun 2006 at 21:22

read my post again I was not finished.

40 quid for a night out with a lady!

won't be a very exciting night out lol!

Darkwave · 14 Jun 2006 at 21:25

easyrider said:
read my post again I was not finished.

40 quid for a night out with a lady!

won't be a very exciting night out lol!

It would be a bit of a flop wouldn't it, but it would be more exciting than 1fps in F.E.A.R., I'll give you that.

I read your post again, and you seem to be forgetting that their test system uses 1GB RAM. Anyone knows that in those resolutions you will be hitting the disk like a mad hatter with 1GB RAM on your system.

So yes, if you plan to play in 2048x1536 with 1GB RAM, a 512MB card would come recommended from me.

Then again, I would say buy an extra gig of RAM with that £40 instead.

Money much better spent there as it improves a heck of a lot more than just video.

easyrider · 14 Jun 2006 at 21:27

The point is 40 quid is not that much to pay extra for a certain ammount of future proofing.A term I hate to use in pc hardware terms.

I would rather spend the extra 40,stay in a night and know I could enjoy future titles without the need to upgrade.

Darkwave · 14 Jun 2006 at 21:28

easyrider said:
I would rather spend the extra 40,stay in a night and know I could enjoy future titles without the need to upgrade.

Then spend it on an extra gig of RAM, not a 512MB card.

I did *points to sig* and I don't regret it one bit since it's made the computer much quicker on the whole, not just at rendering 3D graphics.

easyrider · 14 Jun 2006 at 21:30

Exsomnis said:
Then spend it on an extra gig of RAM, not a 512MB card. I did *points to sig* and I don't regret it one bit since it's made the computer much quicker on the whole, not just at rendering 3D graphics.

But then you have enough system ram but not enough for future titles.
Adding more ram in the future is easier than having to buy a new card with 512mb ram. I'm sure you will agree.

To me it sounds a bit like you are justifying buying a 256 x1800 instead of offering the advice of getting a 512mb card for not much more that will allow future gaming.

Ram can be added to a sytem any time but adding ram to a video card requires a new card.

daz.wallace · 14 Jun 2006 at 22:16

On the subject of an extra £40 on top of the £215 quoted in the first reply for the X1800XT, would it be worth while spending that extra £40 on a X1900XT for £254.39?

This would be the absolute maximum I could dedicate to graphics as I am having a bit of an overhaul and have a budget for the whole job.

Is the X1900XT worth the extra?

Sorry for throwing another factor into the debate

Thanks for all the replies so far

(I already have 2GB of system ram so buying more memory is not really an issue)

LoadsaMoney · 14 Jun 2006 at 22:24

You can get an x1900 XT for only £241.

daz.wallace · 14 Jun 2006 at 22:31

LoadsaMoney said:
You can get an x1900 XT for only £241.

Hmmmmm

Didn't you go from an X1800 an X1900?

If you did, is it worth the extra?

Edit: found it at that price, had a bad experience with those people in the past

Darkwave · 14 Jun 2006 at 22:32

easyrider said:
To me it sounds a bit like you are justifying buying a 256 x1800 instead of offering the advice of getting a 512mb card for not much more that will allow future gaming.

I can definitely see why you would come to that conclusion, but I'm afraid it's just not the case. The reasons I bought an X1800XT 256MB are simple ones: -

1.) I only game in 1280x960 or 1600x1200 (rarely) due to refresh rate limitations on my CRT monitor. I am seriously prone to migraines, and any refresh rate under 85hz seems to be a real nightmare for me.

I would just buy a new monitor, but it's a really good one TBH, and I felt my £200 was better spent upgrading my system components than my monitor.

2.) Taking my resolution requirements into account, it was completely clear that 512MB of RAM would be utterly useless to me as I cannot justify spending ~£60 extra (at the time) for a couple of FPS. Instead, I put a little of that money toward another gig of RAM and the rest toward vodka.

3.) I plan to built an entirely brand-spanking new system in 8-12 month's time once DirectX 10 titles start picking up, my current card was bought purely to tide me over until then since my X800 GTO² just wasn't cutting it in games like Call Of Duty 2 and Oblivion.

So, I hope that explains why I am not just trying to justify my purchase. My purchase was justified as being a stop-gap even before I made it.

no_1_dave · 14 Jun 2006 at 22:47

7900 GT would suit your needs perfectly