• 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.

256 vs 512?

z0mbi3

z0mbi3

z0mbi3

Soldato
Joined
9 May 2005
Posts
7,400
Location
Berkshire
Not so long ago I remember reading articles about how even 256 mb over 128 mb of video memory wasn't really necessary as games would never make full use of it.

Now we're on to 256 and 512 I'm beginning to think that maybe the available video memory is beginning to make a difference in performance again?

Reason I bring this up is that I'm planning my next upgrade, and the difference between a x1950 pro 256 and 512 is ~£30.

If someone could tell me that 512 really is OTT, and is only needed for uncompressed textures which don't really look different from the next step down then I'd be over joyed.

I'm beginning to think that the available video memory really will make a difference :rolleyes:

Opinions?
 
I'd say go for it if it's only £30 more, think of it this way, if you went and got the 256MB version, and run something like DOOM 3 at ultra settings with a huge resolution and whatever, and experienced lag, because of the Video memory not being there wouldn't you be a bit peeved that you didn't spend a mere £30 extra on a card thats like £200 - £300:)?
 
Still no real difference but if you can afford it then there's no harm in going for the 512MB model, especially if you don't plan to do another upgrade for a while.
 
Thing is it'll push my budget over the edge I think. Atm I'm looking at around £217 including a new motherboard.

I honestly concider uncompressed textures a little pointless, but arguably this is the way things are going :(
 
squiffy said:
Also you can't upgrade from 256MB to 512MB on the videocard, unlike system memory.
Click to expand...
I remember when they were thinking about bringing in support for upgrading cores and memory on graphics cards, that would be so neat. :(
 
Ulfhedjinn said:
I remember when they were thinking about bringing in support for upgrading cores and memory on graphics cards, that would be so neat. :(
Click to expand...

Be interesting to see performance increase once all memory is moved to ondie, video and memory. Say 2GB of of on die cache memory, and the same for GPU, 1GB on die cache memory. Bottleneck will be the hard drives then.
 
squiffy said:
Be interesting to see performance increase once all memory is moved to ondie, video and memory. Say 2GB of of on die cache memory, and the same for GPU, 1GB on die cache memory. Bottleneck will be the hard drives then.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense at all, do you understand what your saying? :confused:
 
Ulfhedjinn said:
I remember when they were thinking about bringing in support for upgrading cores and memory on graphics cards, that would be so neat. :(
Click to expand...

They did, but that was years ago. You could upgrade the memory on lots of cards from before 2000. It would be technically impossible to implement this on modern cards without problems....

Different memory chips are used on the same cards even now between production runs. It would never work.
 
z0mbi3 said:
Not so long ago I remember reading articles about how even 256 mb over 128 mb of video memory wasn't really necessary as games would never make full use of it.

Now we're on to 256 and 512 I'm beginning to think that maybe the available video memory is beginning to make a difference in performance again?

Reason I bring this up is that I'm planning my next upgrade, and the difference between a x1950 pro 256 and 512 is ~£30.

If someone could tell me that 512 really is OTT, and is only needed for uncompressed textures which don't really look different from the next step down then I'd be over joyed.

I'm beginning to think that the available video memory really will make a difference :rolleyes:
Opinions?
Click to expand...

Its not as clear cut as how you describe the situation, and its certainly not as clear cut as the nobs who say you don't need 512, 256 etc etc etc...

Basically how much you need is determined by the rest of the system, including the power of the graphics card. The card you are buying, isn't a top end one, so to get playable frame rates in games you won't be able to run at a res as high as a top end card. So because of this you will need less memory.Its about having enough mem on the card relative to the speed of the card itself.

Like back in the old days there was once a Geforce3 Ti200 that had 128MB of memory, it could never use it all though because the card was too slow to utilize it properly - even now it would be too much FOR THAT CARD, itd abit like driving an underpowered mini metro car with a massive petrol tank, and expecting it to go faster.

Having more memory just lets the card run as it should, it won't make it faster, it just won't make it slower.

Having said that, the card your thinking of getting isn't that slow and I would prolly go for 512mb of memory version.
 
ernysmuntz said:
They did, but that was years ago. You could upgrade the memory on lots of cards from before 2000. It would be technically impossible to implement this on modern cards without problems....

Different memory chips are used on the same cards even now between production runs. It would never work.
Click to expand...
Years ago? The idea was having its wheels spun this very year too you know. ;) Nvidia was entertaining the idea of upgradeable graphics cores, but we've heard nothing else since.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom