Any benifit to 256MB of vid memory

[dmw16]

I am just wondering if there will be any advantage to have 256MB of vid memory? Say between a 9500pro w/ 128 or a 9600pro w/ 256 which would be faster in the next gen of games? (I know that it is hard to predict, but I am just looking for educated guesses). I am assuming that the 9500pros faster chipset more than makes up for the lower amount of memory, right?
thanks,
-doug

 

[dnhcaputo1]

Good question!! I'd like to know myself before making that $125 decision.

 

[nick1985]

no

 

[dguy6789]

now 128 mb and 256 perform very similiar. however as games get more compllicated and such, the extra memory will be welcome, becasue if it had under the amount of vram needed, it would have to swap over the agp bus, which is far far slower then using internal vram. So if your future proofing, get 256Mb of vram, but as i said, as of now 256mb of vram offers little to no performance gains.

 

[Mikesta]

any thing over 128mb is just to catch attention.. Its pretty much useless not really a performance difference

 

[CZroe]

For next-gen games the chioce is easily the 256MB card, though only two major titles are known to associate well with this. With memory being the primary bottleneck in video cards, why make the problem worse by forcing games to page to system memory and ultimately the HDD?

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: nick1985
no

 

[John]

I've read that Doom 3 will utilize <128MB textures.

 

[StraightPipe]

Originally posted by: John
I've read that Doom 3 will utilize <128MB textures.

256 will be the "next generation" of vid cards, but personally I will wait until some of those games come ou before i buy one of those cards,

if you buy that hardware b4 the software is realeased, than theres not much you can do to utilize that ne software, short of waiting for the manufacturer to realease new drivers.

but I would say in a year most high-end cards on the market will be moving to 256.


(I cant wait for the games that will have gigabyte textures , will be a few years off)

 

[Arcanedeath]

The only reason to get 256 at this point is if you want FSAA / and AS filtering at high res and then its just a small diff between a 128mb card and a 256mb card, at least w/ any current game on the market, your wasting money on today's and even games in the near future to get a 256mb card

 

[modedepe]

9600 pro is too slow of a card to need that much memory. By the time 256mb is a necessity, a 9600 pro won't come close to having enough power. The only card I'd even consider getting 256mb on is a fx5900 or 9800, and even on those it's hardly worth it.

 

[Corporate Thug]

there is only a benefit if you run your games at 1600*1200

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: shady06
there is only a benefit if you run your games at 1600*1200

You hear this TOO often. It's like people forget that more than just the framebuffer is stored in video memory these days. The entire level, models, textures, etc are stored in video memory. The more complicated the environment gets, the more memory they fill. Games are four times as detailed as they were not too long ago, so they'd take appropriately four times the video memory to avoid paging to system memory (Which is what AGP was made for. Faster AGP speeds only benefit when the game needs to fetch more data from system memory meaning more memory on the card benefits more). Just because 64MB is plenty for the games we have RIGHT NOW unless you're running at 1600x1200 w/ FSAA doesn't mean you'll be able to do whatever you want with Half-Life 2 this fall.

 

[0roo0roo]

for higher levels of fsaa yes, its not useless.

 

[mrgoblin]

Id get the 256 because they said that 64 bit athlons would be a waste about a year ago and now with microsoft and its 64 bit windows and comnpanies starting to program in it, I would expect that 256 will be important sooner than one might think

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: CZroe
For next-gen games the chioce is easily the 256MB card, though only two major titles are known to associate well with this. With memory being the primary bottleneck in video cards, why make the problem worse by forcing games to page to system memory and ultimately the HDD?

Even Doom 3 is only 80megs of textures... Granted that's prolly the lowest amount, it still leaves you another 50 megs for room...



So, may-b the NEXT generation cards after the 9800 pro's successor..

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: CZroe

Originally posted by: shady06
there is only a benefit if you run your games at 1600*1200

You hear this TOO often. It's like people forget that more than just the framebuffer is stored in video memory these days. The entire level, models, textures, etc are stored in video memory. The more complicated the environment gets, the more memory they fill. Games are four times as detailed as they were not too long ago, so they'd take appropriately four times the video memory to avoid paging to system memory (Which is what AGP was made for. Faster AGP speeds only benefit when the game needs to fetch more data from system memory meaning more memory on the card benefits more). Just because 64MB is plenty for the games we have RIGHT NOW unless you're running at 1600x1200 w/ FSAA doesn't mean you'll be able to do whatever you want with Half-Life 2 this fall.

the doom3 benchies so no benefit with 256

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: shady06

the doom3 benchies so no benefit with 256

Wait untill the levels are created that weren't designed for people with an original GeForce256 (Like Carmack says is the base-line

).

 

[randumb]

As many people will tell you, 256MB will be used in the future, but by the time games need that much, your graphics card will be outdated.

 

[charlie21]

Originally posted by: bjc112So, may-b the NEXT generation cards after the 9800 pro's successor..

At which point we'll have DirectX 10, so you'll need DX10 hardware to run the newest games, and we'll all be wondering if we really need 1 GB of video memory...

Get a DX9 card with 128.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: charlie21

Originally posted by: bjc112So, may-b the NEXT generation cards after the 9800 pro's successor..

At which point we'll have DirectX 10, so you'll need DX10 hardware to run the newest games, and we'll all be wondering if we really need 1 GB of video memory...

Get a DX9 card with 128.

Yep, in all honesty a Ti4200 is almost your best bet for about $100 dollars... When Doom 3 and Half Life 2 ACTUALLY come out, upgrade.

Case closed.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: charlie21

Originally posted by: bjc112So, may-b the NEXT generation cards after the 9800 pro's successor..

At which point we'll have DirectX 10, so you'll need DX10 hardware to run the newest games, and we'll all be wondering if we really need 1 GB of video memory...

Get a DX9 card with 128.

Yep, in all honesty a Ti4200 is almost your best bet for about $100 dollars... When Doom 3 and Half Life 2 ACTUALLY come out, upgrade.

Case closed.

 

[dguy6789]

dx10 hehe, dx9 is going to last about 2 to 4 years according to microsoft, they are slowing down how fast they make dx things because games cant keep up.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: charlie21

Originally posted by: bjc112So, may-b the NEXT generation cards after the 9800 pro's successor..

At which point we'll have DirectX 10, so you'll need DX10 hardware to run the newest games, and we'll all be wondering if we really need 1 GB of video memory...

Get a DX9 card with 128.

Agreed!
I never buy stuff for "future potential", that's a waste.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: modedepe
9600 pro is too slow of a card to need that much memory. By the time 256mb is a necessity, a 9600 pro won't come close to having enough power. The only card I'd even consider getting 256mb on is a fx5900 or 9800, and even on those it's hardly worth it.

Exactly what I was thinking - the video processor might not be powerful enough to push out decent framerates if it tries to utilize all of the memory on the card.