Radeon9600XT: 128Mb vs 256Mb

[\\¯`·.¸biz¸.·´¯/]

Interesting stuff......

http://tinyurl.com/yqk8j

It seems that the extra 128Mb of memory makes little or no difference.
I've ordered the 256mb card (sapphire) as I got it for the same price as
the 128, hopefully that should make it a bit more 'future-proof' for new
games.

biz

 

[Ben Pope]

Interesting stuff......

http://tinyurl.com/yqk8j

It seems that the extra 128Mb of memory makes little or no difference.
I've ordered the 256mb card (sapphire) as I got it for the same price as
the 128, hopefully that should make it a bit more 'future-proof' for new
games.

The reviewers seem blind of the Sapphire Ultimate range - the range where
they add better (silent) cooling to the card.

The extra memory is for loading additional textures, so your games can have
a little more eye-candy - FPS should be reasonably unaffected, as shown.

Ben

 

[Mike P]

But the 9600pro/xt gpu doesn't have the power to run at settings that
require the extra ram, i.e. high res with aa/af, to use up ram required for
the extra textures. You have to watch the ram speeds, that's where the
256mb cost is kept closer to 128mb (slower ram).

Mike

 

[Ben Pope]

But the 9600pro/xt gpu doesn't have the power to run at settings that
require the extra ram, i.e. high res with aa/af, to use up ram required
for the extra textures. You have to watch the ram speeds, that's where
the 256mb cost is kept closer to 128mb (slower ram).

Agreed. RAM speed is a factor - I wonder if the two cards compared had same
clocked memory? Since it was Sapphire, I'd suspect so, but would like ot be
able to explain the consistently lower performance.

Ben