Time for 256mb's yet?

[stratcatprowlin]

Should we buy a top of the line 128mb card in the next year?
Is there proof that 256mb cards outperform thier 128mb counterparts with our current crop of games?
Doom3 was supposed to be the reason for more video memory but 128mb cards seem to run it just fine.
What about the games to come? Are there any concrete examples that should sway us towards double the norm in the next year?

What are your opinions?

[Vrykyl]

well with 512mb 6800ultras on the way, and the next series of ati pci-e cards coming with 512mb, soon 256mb cards will be the norm anyways IMO

[Hellion]

yes. lol, oh ok you want a REAL answer :P, well, im not sure about performing better on all games over all, BUT. On the newer games. higher res and detail is useable with a better performance stability, and what i mean by that is, you might still get 60 fps or whatever, but were as a 128 would dip into the low 20's a 256 would hold stronger at low 30's, get it? its kinda like low end head room. IF that makes sense lol. Another way of thinking about it is, would you get a perform increase from 256 when only 128 of it is used? no. but if its a game...DOOM 3 were the higher settings CAN use more into the 256 if not 500(so it says) than yes...so it really all depends on what the game developers plan on doing and see if they plan on making them rewuiring or if it will be ABLE to use the full 256. and btw, this is in IMO lol.

[stratcatprowlin]

To be safe I'm going to go with 256mb's because I dont have the money to keep upgrading.Maybe by christmas time the Nvidia 6600 series will go agp and be available with 256mb's.

[hUMANbEATbOX]

can you buy a "top of the line" card with 128 even?

not really.

[stratcatprowlin]

Ok,good point but you can still spend $300-$400 on a 128mb version right?

[PhobMX]

Ok,good point but you can still spend $300-$400 on a 128mb version right?

id wait for 512mb ones to go out so 256mb ones prices go down. Anyway 256mb with pcie bandwith and some shared memory might help right(just in case)???

[Albuquerque]

Do you play at high resolutions?

Do you play with medium to high levels of AA or AF?

On a "top of the line card", you should have enough horsepower to perform both simultaneously. New GPU's are speedy enough to play a large quantity of games at 1600x1200 with low, medium or even high levels of both AA and AF. Now it's time for some math:

Any game at 1600x1200 with 32bit color and a 24-bit Z buffer needs around 12.8mb of video ram to draw a single frame; most games will "double buffer" by default, so there's just a tad more than 25.5mb of ram just to draw the frames. If you use triple buffering, you're at almost 38.5mb...

Now let's throw some AA into the mix. 2xAA? That means 2x the color framebuffer (zbuffer needs stay the same), so that means each frame needs ~20.1mb, or using typical double buffering needs ~40.3 mb, or triple buffered needs 60.5mb. 4xAA? That means 4x the color framebuffer (again, zbuffer space is not affected). That's 34.8mb per frame, or 69.6mb double buffered, and again 104.4mb triple buffered.

Getting the idea? You know where 6xAA and higher is gonna go :)

So, at 1600x1200x32 with 24-bit Z at 4xAA using only the standard double buffering (page flipping) render mode, you're using almost 70mb of video ram JUST to get the frames rendered to screen space. You haven't even loaded ANY textures yet, or any geometry data, or pixel shaders, or who knows what else.

Something else to think of, on top of all that texture data, you also need to consider mipmaps. Most of the time, mipmaps can help your memory usage because further off textures will be loaded at a lower resolution. However, when you start using high levels of AF, a significant portion of mipmaps are not low resolution anymore.

A given scene in UT2K3 at "high" can use more than 60mb of textures; a given scene in FarCry can use 80+mb of textures. And wait, you still haven't loaded pixel shader instructions yet. Depending on where you are in FarCry, you could be looking at several DOZEN pixel shaders...

If you're playing at 1600x1200x32 at basically any level of AA at this point, you suddenly have WAY too much video data to fit into your video ram. The texture data is going to spill over into main system ram by way of the AGP bus, and your framerate is going to suddenly plummet into the 20's or worse (depending on AGP speed, memory speed, timings, luck, driver issues, game issues, size of the textures, how MUCH of the texture had to spill over, etc)

See where this is going?

Let's rerun some of these numbers for 1024x768x32 at 24-bit Z... When page-flipping, you need only 10.5mb of ram to raster, and even at 4xAA you need slightly less than 30mb of ram. That still leaves you a good amount of room for textures and pixel shaders in a normal 128mb video card.

Simply having more memory does not change the actual overall speed of your video card. Think of it just like your normal home computer: will your computer work with 128mb of ram? Absolutely. Is a 128mb machine pretty slow? Usually, especially on a newer Windows OS. What makes it slower than a computer with 1gb of memory? Is it because the memory is slower, or is it actually because you play games and use applications that NEED more than 128mb of memory?

I think you know the answer :)

[stratcatprowlin]

Albuquerque,Now that was the answer I was looking for!
My TI4200 only has 64mb's:(

[Quailane]

Albuquerque,Now that was the answer I was looking for!
My TI4200 only has 64mb's:(

Well, my 64mb ti4200 spanked my dad's 256mb 9600, so don't fell bad.

[JigPu]

Quadruple kudos points to Albuquerque! One for answering the question, another for doing it thoroughly, and two more for teaching the mod something (how AA uses memory)!

I'll agree with the consensus here. 256MB will be pretty much nesscary for tomorow's games if you want to use you're card's horepower by turning up res/IQ.
JigPu

[stratcatprowlin]

Well, my 64mb ti4200 spanked my dad's 256mb 9600, so don't fell bad.
hehe,I think this card rocks but I wish I had the 128mb version.

[stereo555]

Quadruple kudos points to Albuquerque! One for answering the question, another for doing it thoroughly, and two more for teaching the mod something (how AA uses memory)!

JigPu

I second that ! Very nice post Albuquerque :attn: . I just learned some good stuff from you today . Big thx :clap:

[PhobMX]

IMPRESSIVE POST ALBUQUERQUE!! That post could even be stickied itself... Now you can keep the $5 you owe me... ROFLMFAO jk

Well, my 64mb ti4200 spanked my dad's 256mb 9600, so don't fell bad.

hmm, lowest quality textures no aa or af with double buffering according to albuquerques logic.


Id also like to point out albuquerque that based on your PC analogy, a 386cpu with 1gb of ram is worthless. Thats why i believe that buying a sub r9700 video card with 256mb of memory is worthless.

In short, the gpu must be fast enough to fill the ram too. So its a matter of balance. An fx5700 256mb doesnt perform as fast as my r9700 pro 128mb not even if the memory bus would be 256bit on the 5700

[stratcatprowlin]

An fx5700 256mb doesnt perform as fast as my r9700 pro 128mb not even if the memory bus would be 256bit on the 5700

Yeah but what if the game was steady rollin at 200mb's? then what?

[PhobMX]

Yeah but what if the game was steady rollin at 200mb's? then what?

a game steady rolling at 200mb would be first bottlenecked by the gpu... just go look at the benchies... ive yet to see a 5700 256mb or a r9600 256mb beat a r9700pro

[stratcatprowlin]

So there isn't or couldnt be a game that the 5700 could play smoothly requiring 200mb's of video ram? Is that your point?

[PhobMX]

So there isn't or couldnt be a game that the 5700 could play smoothly requiring 200mb's of video ram? Is that your point?

cant asure that, but still the r9700 128mb is faster because the gpu is faster and can fill more frames to the memory than the 5700 no matter the ram size. Again, show me any bench where the 5700 beats the r9700 in the same setup... that if you dont believe me because i havent seen any case up to now

[Albuquerque]

cant asure that, but still the r9700 128mb is faster because the gpu is faster and can fill more frames to the memory than the 5700 no matter the ram size. Again, show me any bench where the 5700 beats the r9700 in the same setup... that if you dont believe me because i havent seen any case up to now
Well, it wouldn't be hard to make a theoretical case where the 5700 with 256mb of ram could outperform a 9700 with 128mb of ram.

Generate a 3D scene that needs exactly 200mb of texture and geometry data, and render it at 1600x1200x32 at 24-bit Z no AA triple-buffered with v-sync on. I'll bet a free cup of coffee that the 5700 256mb card will run around the 9700 128mb card while chanting "nany nany boo boo" :)

Since that rarely would happen, it's still a relatively moot point ;)

[Hellion]

Well, it wouldn't be hard to make a theoretical case where the 5700 with 256mb of ram could outperform a 9700 with 128mb of ram.

Generate a 3D scene that needs exactly 200mb of texture and geometry data, and render it at 1600x1200x32 at 24-bit Z no AA triple-buffered with v-sync on. I'll bet a free cup of coffee that the 5700 256mb card will run around the 9700 128mb card while chanting "nany nany boo boo" :)

Since that rarely would happen, it's still a relatively moot point ;)
....nany nany boo boo? lmao thats hilarious. not oly are you smart enough to come up with answers like the above ones, but at least you have a sense of humor as well.

[stratcatprowlin]

haha,Started off slow but I knew this thread would catch on eventually.

[RJARRRPCGP]

Well, my 64mb ti4200 spanked my dad's 256mb 9600, so don't fell bad.

I dunno if a GeForce 4 Ti4200 can whoop a Radeon 9600, except for maybe 3D Mark 2001 SE and DirectX 8.1 games. Remember, the GeForce 4 Ti4200 don't have pixel shader 2.0! First off, your system with a GeForce 4 Ti4200 may have whooped your dad's system with a Radeon 9600, because:

1. Your dad's system has an AGP driver problem.

2. You're overclocking your GeForce 4 Ti4200

3. You have a faster processor than your dad's system has.

[stratcatprowlin]

Oh it can whoop a 9600! My 128mb 9600XT was only slightly faster than my 64mb TI4200.
Turn on the eye candy and it was a different story though.

[PhobMX]

Well, it wouldn't be hard to make a theoretical case where the 5700 with 256mb of ram could outperform a 9700 with 128mb of ram.

Generate a 3D scene that needs exactly 200mb of texture and geometry data, and render it at 1600x1200x32 at 24-bit Z no AA triple-buffered with v-sync on. I'll bet a free cup of coffee that the 5700 256mb card will run around the 9700 128mb card while chanting "nany nany boo boo" :)

Since that rarely would happen, it's still a relatively moot point ;)

you are right, thats why i said i wasnt sure. But again thats THEORETICAL, and theoretical is as real as marketing. Id like to see a doom3 bench r9700 128mb vs fx5700 256mb in very high detail, that would be your theoretical case right? until that ive seen NO CASE where the 256mb 5700 beats the r9700...

[stratcatprowlin]

I think we all understand that.Dont get me wrong,maybe you thought I was arguing otherwise.I wasnt.Just trying to put the peices together thats all.

[Albuquerque]

Hahaha, you know what's lame/funny at the same time?

I looked around at a few benchmarks, turns out the 128mb FX5700 Ultra way outperforms the 256mb FX5700's in Doom3... Go figure :p As usual, the theoretical doesn't always match reality :D

If we had two identical GPU's but with differing amounts of ram, it would be much easier to see the results. Here is an example -- 9800Pro 128mb versus 9800Pro 256mb (http://www.hardavenue.com/reviews/gb9800pro2562.shtml). Now the 256mb card is running the memory like 7mhz faster than the 128mb card, but otherwise they are identical. Notice the benchmark scores in basically ALL tests are dead-equal, until the very last page when they start playing with the AA and AF levels in UT2K3 at 1600x1200.

With no AA and no AF, the scores are equal. But as the IQ goes up, the 128mb card benchmarks go down. Check out the whopping difference at 6xAA / 16xAF -- more than a 50% performance increase when moving to the 256mb variant.

Both cards had the GPU clocked at 378, the ram on the 128mb model is 337.5 and the ram on the 256mb model is 344.25 (ATI bioses always work on a 6.75mhz multiple; the 128mb model is x50, the 256mb model is x51)

Does a 6.75mhz speed increase on the ram give you a 50% speed increase in rdering rate? Only if your original memory speed was like 12mhz :)

[obsolete]

Nice Albuquerque, good information. Nany, nany, boo, boo, lmao. Why is Nany, nany, boo, boo so funny? Haven't heard that in over 15 years, haha.

I just picked up a 256meg version of the 9800 Pro. Flashed to XT no problems. Glad I came across an awesome deal.

Albuquerque, your explanation up above is basically the way I looked at how it works without all the numbers & specs that you provided. Kind of logical how it works.

I "heard" a rumor about EA making their sports games 256megs of ram for your video card a minimum. Not sure if thats true or going to happen soon. But I'm glad I'll be able to hang with some of the new stuff for a little while longer here.

[PhobMX]

Hahaha, you know what's lame/funny at the same time?

I looked around at a few benchmarks, turns out the 128mb FX5700 Ultra way outperforms the 256mb FX5700's in Doom3... Go figure :p As usual, the theoretical doesn't always match reality :D

If we had two identical GPU's but with differing amounts of ram, it would be much easier to see the results. Here is an example -- 9800Pro 128mb versus 9800Pro 256mb (http://www.hardavenue.com/reviews/gb9800pro2562.shtml). Now the 256mb card is running the memory like 7mhz faster than the 128mb card, but otherwise they are identical. Notice the benchmark scores in basically ALL tests are dead-equal, until the very last page when they start playing with the AA and AF levels in UT2K3 at 1600x1200.

With no AA and no AF, the scores are equal. But as the IQ goes up, the 128mb card benchmarks go down. Check out the whopping difference at 6xAA / 16xAF -- more than a 50% performance increase when moving to the 256mb variant.

Both cards had the GPU clocked at 378, the ram on the 128mb model is 337.5 and the ram on the 256mb model is 344.25 (ATI bioses always work on a 6.75mhz multiple; the 128mb model is x50, the 256mb model is x51)

Does a 6.75mhz speed increase on the ram give you a 50% speed increase in rdering rate? Only if your original memory speed was like 12mhz :)

now thats something i agree all about, same chip 128vs256 will be different. Very true

[football]

[QUOTE]=stratcatprowlin]Oh it can whoop a 9600! My 128mb 9600XT was only slightly faster than my 64mb TI4200.
[QUOTE]


http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/index.html

Now which one of those do you have?

There is not a ti4200 todate that can play doom 3 at 78frames per second medium detail, or get close to it. Atleast, not a 64mb version.

[Albuquerque]

Not Doom3, and not FarCry, but there are a lot of older games that really need only raw texturing power such as CoD, the original Unreal series, Q2 and Q3, stuff like that.

I think most everyone knows a 9600xt will wipe the floor with a Ti4200 in "new" games, mostly because the Ti4200 was never built to process large quantities of pixel shaders and high AA/AF levels like the 9600's are. But older games? SHouldn't matter much :)

[Quailane]

I dunno if a GeForce 4 Ti4200 can whoop a Radeon 9600, except for maybe 3D Mark 2001 SE and DirectX 8.1 games. Remember, the GeForce 4 Ti4200 don't have pixel shader 2.0! First off, your system with a GeForce 4 Ti4200 may have whooped your dad's system with a Radeon 9600, because:

1. Your dad's system has an AGP driver problem.

2. You're overclocking your GeForce 4 Ti4200

3. You have a faster processor than your dad's system has.
Actually my cpu was the same speed. Mine is a duron and my dad's a barton. Ok, I was overclocking my ti4200, but it was still a little slower than a ti4400.

OH MY GOD, THE NEW VGA CHARTS ARE UP!!!!!!! YAY!!!!!

Mostly we ran unreal tournament 2004 and 3dmark 01 because my card couldn't do the tests. It was an original gainward 64meg 4x agp card. Granted we didn't have aa or af on but we needed that to crank up the resolution and all of the game's eye candy. In farcry the 9600 would probably do better, but alas, we no longer have either of the cards to try out. I will have the 9600 back soon, when I can talk to my dad about it, because the guy who got it said it was artifacting.