L
LBJGH
not in current games
John Smith said:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
John Smith
Hi,
Is there any real significant advantage in a 256MB 9600XT over a 128MB
9600XT card? I assume the former is faster but faster in what way?
Cheers,
J.
Is there any real significant advantage in a 256MB 9600XT over a 128MB
9600XT card? I assume the former is faster but faster in what way?
Cheers,
J.
D
Dirk Dreidoppel
not in current games
Correct, but newer games this and next year will make heavier use of RAM. A
256 MB card won't have to resort to slow AGP texturing too soon.
Correct, but newer games this and next year will make heavier use of RAM. A
256 MB card won't have to resort to slow AGP texturing too soon.
D
Darthy
Correct, but newer games this and next year will make heavier use of RAM. A
256 MB card won't have to resort to slow AGP texturing too soon.
And when THAT happens - then the GPU/VPU (whatever) graphic card would
not be strong enough to deal with it.
Games of today (Unreal2 / UT2003 / Halo-kinda) there isn't a real
noticable difference between a 64mb Ti4200 and my ATI9800 with 128mb.
Just like NONE of todays video cards are taxing AGP8x... much less AGP
4x.
J
John Russell
Darthy said:And when THAT happens - then the GPU/VPU (whatever) graphic card would
not be strong enough to deal with it.
Games of today (Unreal2 / UT2003 / Halo-kinda) there isn't a real
noticable difference between a 64mb Ti4200 and my ATI9800 with 128mb.
Just like NONE of todays video cards are taxing AGP8x... much less AGP
4x.
--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!
Death to Palladium & WPA!!
The hardware specs supporting graphics cards are being produced in
isolation, rather than in an integrated fashion. So AGP texturing is really
about Intels view that cards should use system memory, but since its
currently the slot of choice for graphics you get it matched with cards of
128 or 256 mg of memory. So you are right that agpx4 or agpx8 are not being
used fully. Everytime intel improve AGP speeds the memory used on the cards
themselves get faster continuing to make AGP texturing look a bottle neck.
D
Dirk Dreidoppel
Games of today (Unreal2 / UT2003 / Halo-kinda) there isn't a real
With UT2003 you're already incorrect. With maximum texture size and detail a
64 MB card takes a huge hit compared to a 128 MB one. No difference between
128 MB and 256 MB, though.
noticable difference between a 64mb Ti4200 and my ATI9800 with 128mb.
With UT2003 you're already incorrect. With maximum texture size and detail a
64 MB card takes a huge hit compared to a 128 MB one. No difference between
128 MB and 256 MB, though.
J
John Smith
Thanks all, seems the consensus is that the 256MB is not worth it although,
here in the UK, they appear to be about £20 more which is not that much.
However, I have been reading 9600XT threads in this NG and there seems to be
alot of people reporting hardware issues and blue/black screen crashes which
some think is to due with faulty memory on the Sapphire 9600XT if I
understand the threads correctly - a bummer as I intend to buy one of the
fanless Sapphires.
J.
here in the UK, they appear to be about £20 more which is not that much.
However, I have been reading 9600XT threads in this NG and there seems to be
alot of people reporting hardware issues and blue/black screen crashes which
some think is to due with faulty memory on the Sapphire 9600XT if I
understand the threads correctly - a bummer as I intend to buy one of the
fanless Sapphires.
J.
D
Dark Avenger
John Smith said:Hi,
Is there any real significant advantage in a 256MB 9600XT over a 128MB
9600XT card? I assume the former is faster but faster in what way?
Cheers,
J.
Actually the 128Mb version is faster, as they use cheaper memory on
the 256 Mb one.. and cheaper is also slower!
J
John Russell
John Smith said:Thanks all, seems the consensus is that the 256MB is not worth it although,
here in the UK, they appear to be about £20 more which is not that much.
However, I have been reading 9600XT threads in this NG and there seems to be
alot of people reporting hardware issues and blue/black screen crashes which
some think is to due with faulty memory on the Sapphire 9600XT if I
understand the threads correctly - a bummer as I intend to buy one of the
fanless Sapphires.
How many of those buying fanless versions then try and overclock them? This
seems certain to cuase problems.
Some people are willing to put low noise ahead of performance. Lack of a fan
dosn't mean that someone has found a way of keeping an overclocked card
running without one.
J
John Smith
That's certainly worth knowing... how did you find that out?
J.
J.
W
Wblane
Wouldn't it always be a bottleneck? This would just be one more device
competing w/the CPU for memory bandwidth.
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
competing w/the CPU for memory bandwidth.
The hardware specs supporting graphics cards are being produced in
isolation, rather than in an integrated fashion. So AGP texturing is really
about Intels view that cards should use system memory, but since its
currently the slot of choice for graphics you get it matched with cards of
128 or 256 mg of memory. So you are right that agpx4 or agpx8 are not being
used fully. Everytime intel improve AGP speeds the memory used on the cards
themselves get faster continuing to make AGP texturing look a bottle neck.
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
W
Wblane
Isn't this because the 256MB versions of cards are using DDR-II, which has
higher latencies? I've seen benchmarks that support this on tomshardware. The
differences are negligible though -- I don't even think it amounted to a 1 FPS.
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
higher latencies? I've seen benchmarks that support this on tomshardware. The
differences are negligible though -- I don't even think it amounted to a 1 FPS.
Actually the 128Mb version is faster, as they use cheaper memory on
the 256 Mb one.. and cheaper is also slower!
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
J
John Russell
Wblane said:Wouldn't it always be a bottleneck? This would just be one more device
competing w/the CPU for memory bandwidth.
The Nforce2 chipset still causes debates over what can use the dual channel
bandwidth when the cpu is connected at half that speed. So using system
memory dosn't impact every chipset architecture, but it's always lagging
behind the speed of the on board memory.
D
Dark Avenger
John Smith said:That's certainly worth knowing... how did you find that out?
J.
It's pretty common knowledge, to make a 256Mb card that has memory as
fast as the 128Mb version, get ready to pay quite allot more. So much
more that the 128Mb version of a 9800 Non Pro comes in sight!
J
John Smith
Thanks.
Dark Avenger said:"John Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
It's pretty common knowledge, to make a 256Mb card that has memory as
fast as the 128Mb version, get ready to pay quite allot more. So much
more that the 128Mb version of a 9800 Non Pro comes in sight!
D
Dark Avenger
Isn't this because the 256MB versions of cards are using DDR-II, which has
higher latencies? I've seen benchmarks that support this on tomshardware. The
differences are negligible though -- I don't even think it amounted to a 1 FPS.
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Well, not precisely... it's just that the 256Mb cards must stay
cheap..so need cheap memory!
It's nice that on a 128mb card you have quite potent memory, on the
256Mb...nah... not even close.
The 128Mb version also overclocks better...because of better memory.
S
Strontium
-
Dark Avenger stood up at show-n-tell, in
(e-mail address removed), and said:
I've yet to see a 'cheap' 256MB card.
Dark Avenger stood up at show-n-tell, in
(e-mail address removed), and said:
(e-mail address removed) (Wblane) wrote in message
Well, not precisely... it's just that the 256Mb cards must stay
cheap..so need cheap memory!
I've yet to see a 'cheap' 256MB card.
D
Darthy
-
Dark Avenger stood up at show-n-tell, in
(e-mail address removed), and said:
I've yet to see a 'cheap' 256MB card.
GeForce2 fx 5200... $80~120 - with 256mb. other than the 5900s, the
GeForce Ultras DO NOT come with 256mb. (5200/5600/5700).
T
Timothy T. Doran
Don't buy an ATI 9600XT based video controller unless it is a genuine retail
ATI 9600XT, as most other "builders" that are using the ATI 9600XT chipset
have not fully followed the ATI reference design, used old PCB's that were
"in stock"
to rush product out for Christmas holiday, and have not enabled the ATI
"OVERDRIVE"
feature.
I too was "duped'" by C.P.Technology Co., Ltd. aka/dba in United States as
Power Color USA Corp. in purchasing a R96A-C3T in a new system I had built
by Future Technologies International, Inc. (FTI), Great Neck, NY about two
weeks ago, who is an "authorized" distributor/reseller" Power Color
products.
The cost to me between the Power Color R96A-C3T and a genuine retail ATI
9600XT was less than five dollars, but I went ahead with the Power Color
Product since it seemed to have a better bundle. I was not aware that there
were any differences in the cards, as Future Technologies International,
Inc. (FTI) web site (as do most other resellers) still to this day state the
fact that the Power Color R96A-C3T has "OVERDRIVE", as does C.P.Technology
Co., Ltd. Main web site, only in the last week has the Power Color USA Corp.
web site quietly removed the statement about the Power Color R96A-C3T having
'OVERDRIVE" ability.
ATI 9600XT, as most other "builders" that are using the ATI 9600XT chipset
have not fully followed the ATI reference design, used old PCB's that were
"in stock"
to rush product out for Christmas holiday, and have not enabled the ATI
"OVERDRIVE"
feature.
I too was "duped'" by C.P.Technology Co., Ltd. aka/dba in United States as
Power Color USA Corp. in purchasing a R96A-C3T in a new system I had built
by Future Technologies International, Inc. (FTI), Great Neck, NY about two
weeks ago, who is an "authorized" distributor/reseller" Power Color
products.
The cost to me between the Power Color R96A-C3T and a genuine retail ATI
9600XT was less than five dollars, but I went ahead with the Power Color
Product since it seemed to have a better bundle. I was not aware that there
were any differences in the cards, as Future Technologies International,
Inc. (FTI) web site (as do most other resellers) still to this day state the
fact that the Power Color R96A-C3T has "OVERDRIVE", as does C.P.Technology
Co., Ltd. Main web site, only in the last week has the Power Color USA Corp.
web site quietly removed the statement about the Power Color R96A-C3T having
'OVERDRIVE" ability.
J
Jeff Heyen
J.,
I don't know for sure if the 9600XT follows what most cards exhibit, but
usually
the 256MB version uses a slower ns memory, so the card is a bit slower than
the
128MB version.
Jeff
I don't know for sure if the 9600XT follows what most cards exhibit, but
usually
the 256MB version uses a slower ns memory, so the card is a bit slower than
the
128MB version.
Jeff
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.