Any one seen a review of this product? I know theres plenty of reviews for
the 256mb version but cant seem to find the 128mb ones.

I heard that they were all 256. There are no 128 meg XT's

JK

"Gary Markham" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3ff5fa68$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Any one seen a review of this product? I know theres plenty of reviews for
> the 256mb version but cant seem to find the 128mb ones.
>
>

John Hall stood up at show-n-tell, in
pBsJb.232894$(E-Mail Removed), and said:

> "Gary Markham" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:3ff5fa68$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Any one seen a review of this product? I know theres plenty of
>> reviews for the 256mb version but cant seem to find the 128mb ones.

> I heard that they were all 256. There are no 128 meg XT's

That is my understanding, as well.


>
> JK
>

--
Strontium

"It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every
now, and then, I kick the livin' **** `outta me." - Lit

Just that ive seen one for sale online thats all, buts im sure your right
cos ive never seen one review for such a card.

"Strontium" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> John Hall stood up at show-n-tell, in
> pBsJb.232894$(E-Mail Removed), and said:
>
> > "Gary Markham" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:3ff5fa68$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Any one seen a review of this product? I know theres plenty of
> >> reviews for the 256mb version but cant seem to find the 128mb ones.
>
> > I heard that they were all 256. There are no 128 meg XT's
>
> That is my understanding, as well.
>
>
> >
> > JK
> >
>
> --
> Strontium
>
> "It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every
> now, and then, I kick the livin' **** `outta me." - Lit
>
>

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:40:35 +1030, "Gary Markham"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Any one seen a review of this product? I know theres plenty of reviews for
>the 256mb version but cant seem to find the 128mb ones.

No such thing... No slower either... The extra ram is an excuse for
the higher price tag too..


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

mine and some others 9800xt show as 128 in dx9, does that count ??
Cant track the problem down, might be a mb problem. futuremark and aquamark
looking at the 9800xt results you will find some at 128. Problem is they
were no cheaper to purchase than the people showing a full 256mb in dx9.

Have a good one.

"Darthy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:40:35 +1030, "Gary Markham"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Any one seen a review of this product? I know theres plenty of reviews
for
> >the 256mb version but cant seem to find the 128mb ones.
>
> No such thing... No slower either... The extra ram is an excuse for
> the higher price tag too..
>
>
> --
> Remember when real men used Real computers!?
> When 512K of video RAM was a lot!
>
> Death to Palladium & WPA!!

John Hall <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsBsJb.232894$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I heard that they were all 256. There are no 128 meg XT's

Do you think there's much difference in performance between 128mb and 256mb
cards? (this includes the lesser versions like 9600). Especially looking
towards the big-name games yet to be released (HL2, Doom3, etc), would a
128mb card bought near their release be a poor choice as opposed to 256mb,
or is there not much practical difference?

--
Naggas

-
Mike 'Naggas' Anagno stood up at show-n-tell, in
jTzJb.75931$(E-Mail Removed), and said:

> John Hall <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> newsBsJb.232894$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I heard that they were all 256. There are no 128 meg XT's
>
> Do you think there's much difference in performance between 128mb and
> 256mb cards? (this includes the lesser versions like 9600).
> Especially looking towards the big-name games yet to be released
> (HL2, Doom3, etc), would a 128mb card bought near their release be a
> poor choice as opposed to 256mb, or is there not much practical
> difference?

Personally, I don't think there will be much performance gain between 128
and 256MB of onboard RAM. Maybe, a year from now. But, not at the moment.
Just my opinion.


--
Strontium

"It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every
now, and then, I kick the livin' **** `outta me." - Lit

Agreed. Check Tom's Hardware for benchmark comparisons between 128 and 256
meg cards. Little or no difference except at the highest resolutions such
as 1600x1200. One day they will have the textures to fill the memory, and
the GPU's to push them, but not now.

JK

"Strontium" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> -
> Mike 'Naggas' Anagno stood up at show-n-tell, in
> jTzJb.75931$(E-Mail Removed), and said:
>
> > John Hall <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > newsBsJb.232894$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> I heard that they were all 256. There are no 128 meg XT's
> >
> > Do you think there's much difference in performance between 128mb and
> > 256mb cards? (this includes the lesser versions like 9600).
> > Especially looking towards the big-name games yet to be released
> > (HL2, Doom3, etc), would a 128mb card bought near their release be a
> > poor choice as opposed to 256mb, or is there not much practical
> > difference?
>
> Personally, I don't think there will be much performance gain between 128
> and 256MB of onboard RAM. Maybe, a year from now. But, not at the
moment.
> Just my opinion.
>
>
> --
> Strontium
>
> "It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every
> now, and then, I kick the livin' **** `outta me." - Lit
>
>

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:57:35 GMT, "Mike 'Naggas' Anagno"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>John Hall <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>newsBsJb.232894$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I heard that they were all 256. There are no 128 meg XT's
>
>Do you think there's much difference in performance between 128mb and 256mb
>cards? (this includes the lesser versions like 9600). Especially looking
>towards the big-name games yet to be released (HL2, Doom3, etc), would a
>128mb card bought near their release be a poor choice as opposed to 256mb,
>or is there not much practical difference?

WHEN there is a REAL need for 256mb on the video card than can really
really use it, THEN it would be too much of a work load for todays
current video cards.

Kind of like the people buying the 64mb GF2mx... and surprised they
got nothing. Or the 128mb GF3 cards... which were still EASILY slower
than a 64mb GF Ti4200 card.

256mb = marketing model.

I play HALO on both a GF4Ti card with 64mb and my 128mb ATI 9800 pro -
BOTH cards display the game almost exactly the same! Just higher fps
on the ati card of course.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!