512Mb 7900GT : Is there one? Is it worth it?

SithUK · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:08

Hi,

Questions in the title really...

I recall reading Doom3 refuses to run in top quality mode without 512Mb of gfx card memory. Can anyone clarify this for me?

I'll be gaming at 1280x1024 so if there is a resolution caveat please state that also.

Thanks.

chaparral · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:10

SithUK said:
Hi,

Questions in the title really...

I recall reading Doom3 refuses to run in top quality mode without 512Mb of gfx card memory. Can anyone clarify this for me?

I'll be gaming at 1280x1024 so if there is a resolution caveat please state that also.

Thanks.

You can't get a 7900gt 512mb..only 256mb

locutus12 · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:20

they may not be available here but you can get them. i would go with the X1800XT 512mb though.

SithUK · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:22

Are any other current game engines constrained by 256Mb? I realise having more memory can give higher FPS, what I'm getting at is are there any games which will not even run at max eye candy without the 512Mb regardless of the card's speed.

Will the likes of Crysis and the upcoming Unreal3 etc be quality limited by 256?

smids · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:25

SithUK said:
Are any other current game engines constrained by 256Mb? I realise having more memory can give higher FPS, what I'm getting at is are there any games which will not even run at max eye candy without the 512Mb regardless of the card's speed.

Will the likes of Crysis and the upcoming Unreal3 etc be quality limited by 256?

It's all to do with AA and AF at high resolutions. 1280x1024 with AA and AF is a bit faster on 512MB cards than 256MB cards and the gap widens at even higher resolutions.

locutus12 · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:25

well, supreme commanders going to need a crap load as it renders 4km of viewable area but that wont be out till jan 2007. unreal tournament 2007 i coudnt give a toss about as to me its a game for meat heads

"kill" "kill" to which i ask... Why ?

i dont like games without a story

smids · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:26

locutus12 said:
well, supreme commanders going to need a crap load as it renders 4km of viewable area but that wont be out till jan 2007. unreal tournament 2007 i coudnt give a toss about as to me its a game for meat heads "kill" "kill" to which i ask... Why ?

i dont like games without a story

Well, I'll not stand for that. UT2007 will be a great game and will bring the engine used by many others.

- don't slate UT

.

locutus12 · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:27

bah, me tarzan with testosterone and big gun...

Unreal 3... fine, UT2K7 ??? why?

smids · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:28

locutus12 said:
bah, me tarzan with testosterone and big gun...

LMAO - I'm a story man myself (i.e. Final Fantasy games etc) but it is always nice to have a no thinking required game - lets off steam.

chaparral · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:29

SithUK said:
Are any other current game engines constrained by 256Mb? I realise having more memory can give higher FPS, what I'm getting at is are there any games which will not even run at max eye candy without the 512Mb regardless of the card's speed.

Will the likes of Crysis and the upcoming Unreal3 etc be quality limited by 256?

Both quake4 and COD2 like 512mb video cards for there highest texture settings.

locutus12 · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:29

ive got unreal tournament 2004 on my desk here... i think i played it for 3 days single player, 2 days online. got bored of it, boxed it, shelved it. i dont like a game unless you have to think about it.

chaparral said:
Both quake4 and COD2 like 512mb video cards for there highest texture settings.

lol, quake 4 will run on max settings with full AA/AF @ 1280x1024 on an X800GTO2 256mb. its old and crap

kbc · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:30

I'm pretty sure a 512MB version will be released for the 7900GT. Pretty sure? I mean I'm guessing...

But if it fell to a choice between the X1800s, then I'd always opt for the 512MB version considering the price difference is quite minimal.

Plus running games at higher resolutions is always more fun.

I've not played those fast paced shooters in ages, the last one I played was Quake 3 Arena, and I was pretty good in that.

locutus12 · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:31

kbc said:
I'm pretty sure a 512MB version will be released for the 7900GT. Pretty sure? I mean I'm guessing...

its already out there

it exists and ive seen the bench marks to prove it

incidentally, sith... Doom 3 will run on top quality on a 256mb card. its not that fantastic

kbc · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:33

locutus12 said:
its already out there it exists and ive seen the bench marks to prove it

incidentally, sith... Doom 3 will run on top quality on a 256mb card. its not that fantastic

Come on, let's see those benchmarks.

.... if possible. To my mind, I don't think it's worth me upgrading from my 7800GT (7615 3DMark05/4294 3DMark06) to a 7900GT 256MB, the performance increase doesn't seem to justify it. Unless I was moving to an X1900 or a 7900GTX.

locutus12 · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:34

your wish is my command

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/09/ati_and_nvidias_same_day_mega_launch_mayhem/page10.html

cards tested are

Graphics Cards NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX 512MB GDDR3 650MHz Core 800MHz Memory
NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT 512MB GDDR3 600MHz Core 800MHz Memory
NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB GDDR3 550MHz Core 1.7 GHz Memory
ATI Radeon X1900XTX 512MB GDDR3 650MHz Core 1.55GHz Memory
ATI Radeon X1900XT CrossFire Edition 512MB GDDR3 625MHz Core 1.45GHz Memory
ATI Radeon X1800GTO 256MB GDDR3 625MHz Core 1.50GHz Memory

SithUK · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:39

I have to say I'm coming down on the side of the 512Mb version. I'm limited to 1280x1024 at the moment so I want to be able to run the very highest QUALITY setting. Looks like that isn't possible with 256Mb for the duration of the next 12months.

How badly bottlenecked will a P4 Northwood 3.5Ghz be on a 7900GT 512Mb?

I'm holding off a complete system upgrade till DX10 and the next gen CPUs.

Thanks

locutus12 · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:43

the problem is finding a 7900GT with 512mb to buy will be hard at the moment, and it will cost more than a 512mb X1800XT and perform roughly the same. go for the X1800XT in my opinion.

DX 10 wont be out till december and no games will support it till at least february 2007. long wait.

kbc · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:45

SithUK said:
I'm holding off a complete system upgrade till DX10 and the next gen CPUs.

Thanks

If you decide to hold off until a full system upgrade, it might be wise to go for the cheaper card, that way when you do decide to upgrade, the newer GPUs will be out, which will give you a greater choice of fresh graphics card.

After looking at the benchmarks posted, 3DMark05 score alone - the 7900GT 512MB scores only 200marks more than my current card.

Mines the EVGA 7800GT stock clocked at 470MHz/1100MHz with the copper heatsink.

SithUK · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:49

The reason I'm favouring a 7900 over an 1800 is that the 7900 runs quieter and uses less power.

I'll be watercooling and have just bought a seasonic S12 power supply to try and beat the noise levels of the Antec truepower I did have.

My pc is a 24/7 rig and I value silence and power efficiency.

Any recommendations for an interim card that'll handle HL2 and FEAR at max 1280x1024 quality if a 7900GT is too much for me just right now till the upgrade? :-)

kbc · 12 Mar 2006 at 15:53

If you can afford it, get the 7900GT - I don't own a 7900 series card or an ATi, so regarding noise, I'm not so certain. My card was loud though.

For the gaming requirements suggested, it's only the 7900GT and X1800XT which is worth considering.

Any more advances beyond that, well... a 7900GTX or an X1900XT-X will surely suffice.