Current equivalent or better than an X1950Pro...

[skunksta]

Now your reaching edit your post and tell me about the 256mb v 512mb.Also at games runing max 100 plus fps wont comment on min cause i dont know 14fps makes a dif.Come on

 

[skunksta]

I don't need to prove Tom's was wrong there, you can see its wrong, the 320mb GTS would not be faster than the 640mb GTS when both cards are the exact same cards, at the exact same speeds, just one has half the memory.

Look at this review here, 512mb 8800 GT and 256mb 8800 GT, see how when you start slapping AA/AF on, even at 1280x1024, the 256mb gets left behind by the 512mb, thats because it hasn't got enough memory.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/xfx_geforce_8800_gt_256mb_xxx_review/

But what you said that cant happen.Also there both XFX's

 

[willhub]

The results Loadsa is stating in his posts were the 256mb is slower is deffenitly due to memory. The fact is 256mb is a limiting factor compared to 512mb.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Yes if your getting 145fps, then you can afford to lose the 14fps there, but games that get much lower fps, your not going to be able to afford the 14fps drop.

But what you said that cant happen.Also there both XFX's

Yeah i did say it can't happen there, as both those GTS cards are the exact same speeds, obviously in the GT review there, if the 256mb is clocked higher than the 512mb card, then it will be faster, until you up the AA/AF.

EDIT: Yes as i thought, the 256mb GT is clocked higher than the 512mb GT there, as the 256mb is the XXX edition, so at low res, no AA/AF it will be faster than the 512mb due to its faster clocks, but once you start upping the AA/AF (where the memory comes into play) its gona fall behind.

 

[skunksta]

jumping in so late and not reading it all dont help.I agree with him just not 100%. he called a review false due to it having a 320mb GTS beating a 640mb one at 1280x1024.Then showed me a review to prove it cant be done with it being done by a 8800 gt 256mb v a 8800 gt 512mb in Oblivion.Come on its not clocked higher that would make for a poo review.

 

[willhub]

Well if the game is not using all that 256mb of ram then the 256mb GT could be faster, dont know why but you see it sometimes like I remember the GTS 320 beating the GTS 640 in some games. And of course if the GT 256mb is clocked higher then it'll win untill the memory becomes the limitation.

But no one wants to be buying 256mb cards these days if they want to play the latest games full wack at 1280x1024+, 512mb is the standard and in not so long it'll be 1GB.

 

[skunksta]

Well if the game is not using all that 256mb of ram then the 256mb GT could be faster, dont know why but you see it sometimes like I remember the GTS 320 beating the GTS 640 in some games. And of course if the GT 256mb is clocked higher then it'll win untill the memory becomes the limitation.

But no one wants to be buying 256mb cards these days if they want to play the latest games full wack at 1280x1024+, 512mb is the standard and in not so long it'll be 1GB.

Indeed im not saying its not needed just at that res and games out and the fact the op was trying to replace a 1950 i said the GTS 340mb loada said it would not handle 1280x1024 i thought (still think) it would.He never said he would be updating his son's monitor and at a guess he will get his dads GTX when true next gen are out so why waste the extra money.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Its all showing what im saying, the memory is the limiting factor, not the speeds of the cards.

I agree, if hes gona get the GTX in a couple of months or so off his dad, then the 320mb would do till then, its just no good for long term.

 

[skunksta]

But not at 1280x1024 read your own reviews .Just cause you had 1-2 games give u alittle trouble with AA/AF on at that res dont mean it could not handle it.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Was a while ago i had the 320mb GTS, and you have to remember, games are needing more and more memory now for bigger textures etc... since back then when i had one, so be more than a couple of games now, and also the 256mb GT would handle a lot more games at 1280x1024 than the 320mb GTS, as its a much faster card.

 

[skunksta]

Indeed it might but way way way back it was 9600 or the 8800 320mb/640mb and that was what we was discussing you brought the GT into things tbh on a review site and as a better card if he payed that bit more which i said in my first post.But i do get your point just seem's it went right of track.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Yeah i was using the review of the 256mb and 512mb 8800 GT's, to show that the memory does make a difference.