Graphic Cards 256 v 512

S

Sandy

Discoverer
7800gt 256 and 512 both clocked at the same speed

It’s so difficult to choose either way really. You could buy a 256MB card today and it would most definitely serve you well for a year or two, but on the other hand there is no reason not to get a 512Mb card other than price. The performance increase 512MB offers over 256MB is here today in game we all play and the gap will only increase with the next generation of titles, think UE3 and you’ll get what I mean.

I should also point out that this article assumes we are talking about cards like the 7800 GT or higher – don’t waste your time with cards from the mid to low end, the extra memory won’t give you anything.
Click to expand...
http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=33&page=1
 
I think now-a-days one should go for 512MB VRAM.

I don't know exact specification but-

VISTA's UI will take up say 256MB and
the games running on this OS can work on rest 256MB.
 
Hmmm ... although I agree with you about the one should go for a 512MB card ayan, I dont agree with u about the vista logic u gave. When a game will be run on vista, everything like the graphics and even many services will be cleared off RAM and will be written to HD. So, vista will hardly make a lot of difference. On the contrary, it may even leave better RAM for games than XP.
 
VISTA's UI will take up say 256MB and
the games running on this OS can work on rest 256MB.
Click to expand...
It doesnt work that ways, same with RAM when an a programme is running, the OS will use the bare requirements freeing up resources for the app.
 
Aces170 said:
It doesnt work that ways, same with RAM when an a programme is running, the OS will use the bare requirements freeing up resources for the app.
Click to expand...
Right. Another point. In case games using 512 (or working 'better' on that much memory) abound in say 07 or 08.. a person shopping now for a card can go 256.

I remember going for my 5700 in 2003, and the etrnal dilemma - whether to go for 128 or 256. Actually 256 costed some 5K more then (no joke for a lower end card) but I never regretted buying it. Many guys with 128 MB 5700's can no longer use the card for even minimal gaming. In all honesty I just use the 5700 rig casually and save all my gaming fiascos for office or the other rig (X800XT wala)...
 
Its basically a question of having 2Gs on ur system or buying a 512MB card-I think buying a 512MB is far more sensible.F.E.A.R and Quake 4 all use 512Mb cards very well.Time for 1gb or even 2gb cards soon.
 
^^Lol not even remotely soon. By the time 512 MB becomes standard it will be at another year. And add another year at least for 1 GB cards(not quadro/firegl, they already come in 1GB varaints) And for Vista running @ 1024X768 i think only 64 MB VRAM is required so the question of going for 512 for vista is pointless.
 
512mb cards have an upperhand at high resolutions only .. if u are going to be playing at 1280*1024 with max settings (any game), a 256mb card will perform equally as its 512mb counterpart .. but on higher resolutions such as 1600*1200 the 512mb model will perform better... though the perfomance difference wont be REALLY huge.
 
Did anyone even care to see the F.E.A.R graphs, or just posting bs ?

The hitching is real and 512mb takes it away,this hitching also occurs even at 1024x768 if u enable maximum texture resolution and volumetric lighting(from my own experience.)
 
Though the results show huge performance differences they simply cannot fully describe what I felt while playing the game. With 256Mb it was absolutely unplayable with stuttering at every turn, sometimes the screen would not refresh for half a second. This was blatant cache thrashing in action. In comparison the 512Mb card was behaving as it should, no stuttering at all. The average frame rate was low and it wasn’t very enjoyable, but it was a thousand times better than with the 256Mb card.
Click to expand...
See that;that thing occurs even at 1024x768 with everything maxed out in fear with aa and af.
 
Back
Top