I laugh at all the people saying don't get 256meg videocards.

[SunnyD]

Why you ask?

Bill Gates once said, "Noone will ever need more than 640K." Keep that in mind.

I remember about a year ago, this very same debate was being wrangled about in the 64MB versus 128MB camp. The big issue then was the fact that most 128MB cards used slower memory than their 64MB counterparts. This is why I ended up buying the Gainward GF4Ti4600 - they used faster memory for their 128MB solution. However, this point is fairly moot these days.

Let me get on to the real issue here. I have developed some 3D applications and such, and while I may not be John Carmack or anything, I can tell you, the more memory the better, especially in light of higher resolutions, more AA, and, most importantly, complexity of current games. AGP did a nice thing for the 3D video industry, and gave a large pool of high-speed "virtual" memory to video subsystems. However, when compared to the memory directly on the video card, this AGP memory is slow. VERY slow (32-bit/66MHz as opposed to - Radeon 9800? 128-bit-~500MHz?). Now while the good game houses design their engines for the limitations of current cards, you'll be future-proof with 256meg. But make sure the cost isn't prohibitive.

And finally, just remember, games and graphics are going to get more and more compicated. Bigger more detailed textures, finer mesh detail, etc. All this goes into memory, and you'd prefer it to go in the video card's memory rather than AGP memory.

Just my opinion.

 

[Sunner]

First of all, that Bill Gates quote is false.

And it's a bad analogy, since that caused problems further along the road, related to compatibility.
With video cards, that problem doesn't exist, there's nothing preventing a manufacturer from putting 512 MB on a card tomorrow out of fear that it won't be compatible with todays games.

In today's games, 256 = pointless, and top end video cards have such short life cycles that it's a waste of money to buy one, hoping that it will play the most demanding games in a year, just cause it has 256 MB of memory, rather than 128.
Sure, those games might require 256 MB to run at the highest settings, but they'll likely also demand a faster overall card along with it, forcing you to lower the settings on your R9800 anyway.

I bought into this argument a long time ago when I got a 32 MB TNT2-Ultra instead of a 16 MB version, and by the time 32 MB was actually useful, I had long since upgraded my card cause it was too slow anyway.

 

[Regs]

Were not running Windows 3.3 and Win Word on a 3.06 Ghz /w a 256 MB Video card, are we?

No one is arguing that one day we will need such onboard ram, but when the GPU's core itself can't keep up with DX technology , then it's pointless to think just buying the the card with the extra ram will help further future proof it.

I don't get why this is so hard to understand....

So in a way it would be like trying to play Half life with a PC that has a Pentium 1 Pro, but with an extra 128 Megs of ram that means nothing to performance at that level.

 

[nRollo]

Err, why do you laugh at them?
A look at your rigs shows you don't even bother to keep close to current with 128MB cards, let alone 256MB cards? So it must not be that important to you.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Err, why do you laugh at them?
A look at your rigs shows you don't even bother to keep close to current with 128MB cards, let alone 256MB cards? So it must not be that important to you.

That's just I'm a po-boy. I haven't had the opportunity to buy a single piece of hardware in the last two years. Tho I can say I can dream.

And it is a true quote from Billy too. I have to find that interview, but I'm off to work shortly. While I do agree in some respects with everyone's arguements, there are a few things to consider. First, ATi and NV are trying to draw out their product lifecycles now. R&D is costing them a hell of a lot of money for minimal gains these day.

My only thought here, if cost weren't a consideration, why wouldn't you opt for 256MB at this point?

 

[Regs]

Why not? 100 dollars says a lot for minimal gain. Just how you say Nvidia and ATI are cutting the fat.

 

[arcenite]

Also, aren't the 256mb boards slower due to slower ram?

Anyway... I remember getting the Radeon DDR 64mb version instead of the 32mb version because I was worried about futureproofing. Let me tell you, the memory did not help that turtle out one bit once new games came out.

Bill

 

[Sunner]

Actually Bill Gates has repeatedly denied ever saying that in many interviews.
And I've yet to see anyone point to a reliable source of that quote.

Someone at IBM once said something similar, but with a slightly different wording and meaning though, I guess that might be one source of that "quote".

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Rollo
Err, why do you laugh at them?
A look at your rigs shows you don't even bother to keep close to current with 128MB cards, let alone 256MB cards? So it must not be that important to you.

That's just I'm a po-boy. I haven't had the opportunity to buy a single piece of hardware in the last two years. Tho I can say I can dream.

And it is a true quote from Billy too. I have to find that interview, but I'm off to work shortly. While I do agree in some respects with everyone's arguements, there are a few things to consider. First, ATi and NV are trying to draw out their product lifecycles now. R&D is costing them a hell of a lot of money for minimal gains these day.

My only thought here, if cost weren't a consideration, why wouldn't you opt for 256MB at this point?

If cot weren't a consideration, but that is not the fact. No games currently even use 128MB, if they do then prove it. It is not a true quote, maybe if you quoted entirely what he said it make alot more sense.

 

[Slogun]

I'm not paying $500 right now($350, yes) when next year I will likely buy a new high-end card when AGP becomes obsolete.

YOU haven't bought new cards because you can't afford one?

Your thread is condescending, pointless and without merit.

"From: moderator@forums.anandtech.com
Subject: Topic moved
SunnyD - this message is to inform you that your thread topic has been moved to a more appropriate forum.
You can now find your thread in the forum category RECYCLE BIN."

-how appropriate in this case....

 

[Vegito]

i bought a 256mb card to watch porn in higher details..

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Sunner
First of all, that Bill Gates quote is false.

And it's a bad analogy, since that caused problems further along the road, related to compatibility.
With video cards, that problem doesn't exist, there's nothing preventing a manufacturer from putting 512 MB on a card tomorrow out of fear that it won't be compatible with todays games.

In today's games, 256 = pointless, and top end video cards have such short life cycles that it's a waste of money to buy one, hoping that it will play the most demanding games in a year, just cause it has 256 MB of memory, rather than 128.
Sure, those games might require 256 MB to run at the highest settings, but they'll likely also demand a faster overall card along with it, forcing you to lower the settings on your R9800 anyway.

I bought into this argument a long time ago when I got a 32 MB TNT2-Ultra instead of a 16 MB version, and by the time 32 MB was actually useful, I had long since upgraded my card cause it was too slow anyway.

My thoughts exactly.

The original Bill Gates quote goes something like this: With today's programs I cannot see anyone needing more than 640K, but future programs will likely change that. Of course everyone just quotes the first part trying to make Bill Gates look stupid. And Bill Gates denys saying either version.

IF the extra memory was full speed and free sure I'd take it. But I'm not paying more money for something that doesn't help today and likely the rest of the card will be too slow when we finally need the memory.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I can tell you, the more memory the better, especially in light of higher resolutions, more AA, and, most importantly, complexity of current games

None of which will be playable on older cards with today's games, or today's 9800 pro on games in another year or two.

Paying for 256 MB on today's cards is pointless unless money means nothing to you, or bragging rights are worth throwing money into the trash.

Put the extra $100 in the bank to save up for next year's super-card which actually will make a difference.

 

[PrinceXizor]

The original poster's points are fairly without merit. But, from what I understand (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong)...if you run a dual monitor set-up, then the extra memory could be worth it where there are a lot of textures involved. Basically, you have two sets of textures (one for each monitor). That's the ONLY reason I know of that 256MB would be useful, and that's why higher memory allocations showed up on 3D workstation cards, long before they showed up in retail.

P-X

 

[maluckey]

It may be true that 256 megs doesn't do alot for many of todays games. It may also be true that by the time they do help, the card design will be too old. But it may not be entirely true to say that they are not faster than their 128 mb counterparts, when in some games, the 128 megs may not be enough. Take UT2003 for example, on highest level details, with AA, and Aniso enabled, my older 64mb Ti-4200 was swamped! I've seen my system memory usage grow to over 400 mbs! I bought a 128 mb version of the ti-4200. The FPS went up by almost 1.0 FPS, (repeatable) even though the memory was clocked slightly slower. When the memory was OC'ed to match the memory clock of the 64 mb card, it was .2 FPS (repeatable) average faster still. With the extra eye candy off, it was a wash. That's memory, pure and simple.

Would I buy a 256 meg card? Not at my income level. Would it be faster? Maybe. If I was rich, sure.

 

[Sideswipe001]

That extra memory does matter in things like FSAA and Ansio, especially when running it at higher resolutions. The 9800 Pro with 256 is faster in some benchmarks (1280x1024 and up) with FSAA and stuff turned on than the 128 version.

No, it's not a lot faster. And no, it's not in most things any faster. But it does do something. You should be arguing that the 256 versions are not worth the extra money for the next to negilgible gain, not that they are completely worthless. If someone offered to give you a 128 9800 Pro or the 256 one for free, one or the other, wouldn't you take the 256 one? I would.

 

[CarpeDiem99]

Originally posted by: forcesho
i bought a 256mb card to watch porn in higher details..

:beer:

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: Sideswipe001
That extra memory does matter in things like FSAA and Ansio, especially when running it at higher resolutions. The 9800 Pro with 256 is faster in some benchmarks (1280x1024 and up) with FSAA and stuff turned on than the 128 version.

No, it's not a lot faster. And no, it's not in most things any faster. But it does do something. You should be arguing that the 256 versions are not worth the extra money for the next to negilgible gain, not that they are completely worthless. If someone offered to give you a 128 9800 Pro or the 256 one for free, one or the other, wouldn't you take the 256 one? I would.

Agreed, except you missed some points.

1. Like you stated you may see some differences in high Res with AA/AF, maybe a maximum of 2-3 frames difference. That means you would need a monitor that supports 1280x1024 @ 85 Hertz = a 500 dollar monitor, for it make any noticable performance increase at all if it does make a performance increase at all. Have one of those monitors?? If not, even the 256 MBs that is somewhat worthless is now really worthless.

2. You're still spending an extra 100 dollars on something that makes little difference.

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

I can tell you, the more memory the better, especially in light of higher resolutions, more AA, and, most importantly, complexity of current games

None of which will be playable on older cards with today's games, or today's 9800 pro on games in another year or two.

Paying for 256 MB on today's cards is pointless unless money means nothing to you, or bragging rights are worth throwing money into the trash.

Put the extra $100 in the bank to save up for next year's super-card which actually will make a difference.

Invest that sh!t... into ATI!

 

[Sideswipe001]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: Sideswipe001
That extra memory does matter in things like FSAA and Ansio, especially when running it at higher resolutions. The 9800 Pro with 256 is faster in some benchmarks (1280x1024 and up) with FSAA and stuff turned on than the 128 version.

No, it's not a lot faster. And no, it's not in most things any faster. But it does do something. You should be arguing that the 256 versions are not worth the extra money for the next to negilgible gain, not that they are completely worthless. If someone offered to give you a 128 9800 Pro or the 256 one for free, one or the other, wouldn't you take the 256 one? I would.

Agreed, except you missed some points.

1. Like you stated you may see some differences in high Res with AA/AF, maybe a maximum of 2-3 frames difference. That means you would need a monitor that supports 1280x1024 @ 85 Hertz = a 500 dollar monitor, for it make any noticable performance increase at all if it does make a performance increase at all. Have one of those monitors?? If not, even the 256 MBs that is somewhat worthless is now really worthless.

2. You're still spending an extra 100 dollars on something that makes little difference.

1) I have an LCD personally that 's native resolution is 1280x1024. I don't know if I'd be able to notice a difference or not.

2) I agree totally. My argument was that there is "technically" some difference in speed. I don't claim it much, and it's definitely not worth the extra $100. $15? Maybe. But I just don't know enough yet. I want to see if there will be a difference in HL 2 for example. But I would argue the same thing with people who say that your system doesn't need more than 512 MB right now. I have 1 GB and I can tell a difference. More RAM is always good to me; if you're rich enough that you seriously don't care about the FPS/$ comparison, then by all means, get as much as you want.

 

[boyRacer]

^ yeah what they said.

By the time those 256MB cards out now is actually useful... its probably obsolete already.

 

[EXman]

DAMN WHAT A slam FEST

 

[Blastman]

No one is saying 256MB is useless on all videocards, it?s just a marginal play even on current high end cards unless you?re running very high resolutions with AA/AF cranked up.

256MB is virtually useless on a midrange card like a 9600pro/5600U. These cards are generally not fast enough to game at 1600x1200 with AA/AF cranked. Most users will be at 1024x768 or at best 1280x960 where the demands on memory footprint are much less. For the same reason, 256MB is a total waste on cards like the regular 9600/5600?s.

ADD: A midrange 256MB 9600pro 400/200 costs more than the 128MB 400/300 version and has 100Mhz slower memory. User is better off with faster memory and only 128MB.

 

[AMCRambler]

I think video cards have reached the point where their rate of improvement has far exceeded that of the games we play. Just like processors for pcs but it took longer. I remember when a game would require a Pentium 266 and with the top of the line Pentium 500 we thought man, games will never catch up. The gap has grown so that the min required is like 800mhz, and the top of the line is what, 3.2ghz? Same thing is happening with vid cards. Upgrades on cards are gonna start becoming fewer and farther between due to the same effect.
I've got a Geforce 4 4600 that's can run everything I throw at it right now on the highest settings. The card came out 2 years ago and it's still more than enough to run the latest stuff. Now I don't run it at 1400x1600 because that would be ridiculous on a 17inch monitor but even with all details on at 1024x768 it runs UT2k fine. It'll probably be at least a year before I'll need a new card just because I don't need to have the highest settings enabled with 30X anti-aliasing or whatever. It seems to me though that the trend seems to be going more towards greater amounts of time between component upgrades when it comes to vid cards and cpu's because they have outpaced the demands of the software that runs on them.

 

[grant2]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Bill Gates once said, "Noone will ever need more than 640K." Keep that in mind.

heh, when you start a message with something so bogus, there's no need to read on