Performance gain between X1900XT 512mb v 256mb?

f1racer · 9 Oct 2006 at 23:00

Hi guys

Looking to do the yearly upgrade any day now, and I've been trying to find out the gain in having 512mb over 256mb on a X1900XT (HIS card for example). I mostly play BF2 and run my games at 1680x1050. Has anyone got some links to some comparisons etc plz?

Thanks.

easyrider · 9 Oct 2006 at 23:04

Just get the 512mb at that res.

Cyber-Mav · 9 Oct 2006 at 23:05

512mb is good.

although i have no problems so far running battlefield 2 at 1600x1200 with 2xAA.

LoadsaMoney · 9 Oct 2006 at 23:10

easyrider said:
Just get the 512mb at that res.

Agreed.

PermaChanged · 9 Oct 2006 at 23:14

Running the 512mb myself, no complaints on any games so far. Fear and NFSMost Wanted run perfectly at 1600x1200.

Naffa · 9 Oct 2006 at 23:14

I'd go for the 512MB as well, but if you can only afford the 256MB then so be it. There really isn't much between them.

PermaChanged · 9 Oct 2006 at 23:16

naffa said:
There really isn't much between them.

Thats a lie.

A 7950GT will beat a 256 in almost every test but will never beat a 512mb version.

48 pixel pipes and only 256mb ram is a no no.

easyrider · 9 Oct 2006 at 23:27

Rusty_Noob said:
Thats a lie.

A 7950GT will beat a 256 in almost every test but will never beat a 512mb version.

48 pixel pipes and only 256mb ram is a no no.

Naffa knows his stuff,

And who mentioned the 7950GT? :confused:

f1racer · 10 Oct 2006 at 00:33

thx for the replies! Whats the actual extra FPS I should see running the 512mb version? Has anyone benched the two?

Zillio · 10 Oct 2006 at 00:55

In addition to providing faster frame rates at higher resolutions 512mb is now required to enable the highest graphics setting in some games, for instance Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter.

Cyber-Mav · 10 Oct 2006 at 01:17

Zillio said:
In addition to providing faster frame rates at higher resolutions 512mb is now required to enable the highest graphics setting in some games, for instance Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter.

yep 512mb is the way forwards now.

only reason i stuck to 256mb is because by the time i need to fully shift over to 512mb i will need a new card. G80 or R600 will make proper use of 512mb memroy.

HangTime · 10 Oct 2006 at 10:44

Even at that rez the difference isn't all that great:

As you can see, the 512meg version is only 5% faster in BF2 at a higher resolution than you are using, with 4xAA, 8xAF to boot. I don't think that's worth shelling out an extra £60-70 or whatever it is.

ACESHIGH · 10 Oct 2006 at 11:05

Rusty_Noob said:
Thats a lie.

A 7950GT will beat a 256 in almost every test but will never beat a 512mb version.

48 pixel pipes and only 256mb ram is a no no.

actually that is a lie.

The 256MB X1900XT is faster than the 7950GT in almost all cases.
Gibbo posted the reviews himself, confirming this.

Jacob334 · 10 Oct 2006 at 11:22

So conclusion is if your playing HIGH res (1600x1400) then its better to get the 512mb version, but if your playing at 1280x1024 then its not worth spending the extra £70 for the 512mb then?

Because i also play bf2 and im also getting this card, but i do remember seeing some benchmarks a while back showing that there was like a 1/5% difference in fps.. true?

Thanks

Minstadave · 10 Oct 2006 at 11:38

A driver revision a while back gave the X1800XT and X1900XT 256Mb versions some decent performance boosts didn't it? Bringing them closer in line with their 512Mb counterparts.

easyrider · 10 Oct 2006 at 11:46

If buying the x1900 now I would go for the 512mb version just to have the edge in future titles like crysis etc...

This will be enough to carry over to DX 10 once this becomes the norm.

You might regret not spending the extra for the 512mb version.Fot the sake of a few quid.

Jacob334 · 10 Oct 2006 at 12:49

easyrider said:
If buying the x1900 now I would go for the 512mb version just to have the edge in future titles like crysis etc...

This will be enough to carry over to DX 10 once this becomes the norm.

You might regret not spending the extra for the 512mb version.Fot the sake of a few quid.

So spending £65 more for 512mb is worth it for someone thats playing on 1280x1024? I dont really care that much about the future because by the time all these new games come out with dx10 i will prolly get a new card to match..

easyrider · 10 Oct 2006 at 12:56

Jacob334 said:
So spending £65 more for 512mb is worth it for someone thats playing on 1280x1024? I dont really care that much about the future because by the time all these new games come out with dx10 i will prolly get a new card to match..

I never said it was worth it at that res.

Lokk and read the second post in this thread.

The OP stated

f1racer said:
Hi guys
I mostly play BF2 and run my games at 1680x1050. Has anyone got some links to some comparisons etc plz

Thanks.

So the 512mb would be beneficial in this case.

If playing at 1280x1024 then just get the 256mb and be done with it untill DX 10 unless like the cost of the 512mb is around 20 quid like the 7900 GS version.

LoadsaMoney · 10 Oct 2006 at 13:01

ACESHIGH said:
actually that is a lie.

The 256MB X1900XT is faster than the 7950GT in almost all cases.
Gibbo posted the reviews himself, confirming this.

Come on now, dont forget if you overclock the 7950 GT it will whoop the stock x1900, so get the GT i say.

sargatanas · 10 Oct 2006 at 13:53

Not everyone wants to overclock, especially as heavily as the enthusiasts do. Now all we need is someone to come in and talk about volt-modding it, cause it happens in every other thread like this. :rolleyes: