No, it isn't.
"Default settings" means 1280x1024 in 3DMark 2006.

Sorry then, I apologize.

i can confirm 10000 with a stock 8800 + e6600. thats my exact setup and i scored 9995 in 3dmark 06 at default.

I truly understand your point and you are correct; but you missing whole point, what I was trying to compare that some games @ extreme settings needs 512MB+ video memory and 8800GTS-320MB suffers based on that requirements. But behind my whole point was that R600 1GB memory may have a huge advantage over 8800GTX-768MB memory, and some time near future when @ extreme setting minimum requirements be 1GB video memory for games - maybe even Crysis will push 8800GTX to its limits. So to make a bit clear that R600 will last a lot longer before it becomes obsolete.

1GB video RAM as a minimum requirement ?
Yeah, good luck with that.

By the time it happens, DX10 will be little more than a distant memory.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...es/6dm3_4x.gif

I was talking minimum based @ the setting you are, but not as minimum all the time.
Just like example in 3DMark06 testing 8800GTS-320MB

That's what I meant too, I guess he's talking about the case of buying the card and using it for 1.5-2 years or so, in which case it would somewhat matter to the "average" users. The hardcore bunch will have the next big thing by then anyway, so I fail to see any relevance.

Correct! :) That's why I still have AIW Radeon 9800Pro. Plus I bought AIW Radeon 9700PRO when it came out and I used it until it died :lol:

But I bought AIW Radeon X800XT and it was crap! to much problems with AIW features/software/drivers.

In which case it is the raw performance of the GPU, not necessarily the amount of memory, that is responsible for such longevity.

I think you need to check your vision, how would you explain 8800GTS-640MB vs. 320MB. Same GPU!!!!!!

Different price (about $100, not exactly small change), for starters ?

You have to remember that 320MB is only 64MB above the 256MB level which is the minimum required by most current games at mid-to-top quality settings.
Meanwhile, the 640MB version sometimes loses to a 512MB X1950 XTX, and it has 384MB more of memory than the current 256MB minimum level.
The answer is balance. Balance between raw power, memory bandwidth and memory capacity.

This difference would probably be explained better if we had a 384MB 8800 GTX and a few games detailing the shader vs texture view from different PoV's.

That is because for particular situations you don't need more then 512MB video memory, but it rely on Raw power of the GPU instead. (edit: 8800GTS vs. X1950XTX have same amount of memory bandwidth to 64GB vs. 64GB)

This is how simple the math is ? 8800GTS-640MB and 8800GTS-320MB shares same frequency and raw power of the GPU, but in some situations when texture quality/requirements changes and it needs more amount of memory; then 640MB 8800GTS version plays into advantage.

Re: uncompressed textures
 

Why do we care about how cards score with uncompressed textures? I'm under the impression that there's virtually no visible difference b/w Doom 3's HQ and Ultra or SS2's High and Extreme texture settings, so really nothing to show for eating up all that memory and bandwidth but gnarlier chart titles and occasional framerate cliffs.

Isn't HDR more interesting than uncompressed textures? When devs target standard 128, 256, or 512MB RAM sizes, do they now account for AA and now HDR buffers? If not, a 640-768MB G80 may snag some advantage over a 512MB card with both of those features enabled. I'm skeptical we'll see a huge difference b/w 768MB and 1GB cards in a significant number of games until we see a lot more of them around, and I doubt a whispered 1.5GB card will do anything but pad the MSRP compared to a 1GB one for even longer.

The 320MB 8800GTS isn't a revelation b/c it's a high-end card, but without the 512MB that's been standard for high-end cards for a while, like INKster said.

LO...L? That one crosses from funny to sad. You can't report on this stuff for so long and be puzzled by the difference. Maybe the laugh's on me, for not realizing why pretending to not know the difference is advantageous.

I'm not trying to cause trouble here on this forum.

But like you said right now 512MB frame buffer is standard for high-end card.
Few years ago 256MB frame buffer was standard for high-end card.
But since Nvidia made 320MB, 640MB, 768MB video memory and ATI/AMD will go from 512MB to 1024MB, I wonder what would be standard near future.

And like you said ---->Also depends what future holds for extreme-quality, since Crysis game will be so much more detail especially DX10-SM4 support it may very well show it's own standard for the requirement.

Best regards :)

Shtal....

Shtal, considering that Crytek have emphasized that Crysis will be very scalable I'm not sure why you're using it as your poster child for high memory requirements. I doubt it will have some SS2 like "512MB minimum" stipulation. It's highly unlikely that it will "need" 1GB or even 768MB at its highest settings.

Shtal, :lol: I know you're not trying to cause trouble, you troublemaker. :razz: I'm just confused by sites using these maximum texture settings in testing average framerates in high-IQ situations, and I'm not sure using uncompressed textures as a guide is helpful in determining memory size requirements. I can see devs using compressed textures and HDR buffers as memory guidelines, with AA (as common as it is) and uncompressed textures remaining as niceties they won't base their system requirements on.

As for your 3DM06 chart, I think it's an exception, not a rule. The 320MB 8800GTS is a strange one, b/c it seems like a card that may not serve the high-end gamer all that well b/c I think the definition of high-end/enthusiast cards has expanded to include HDR and AA at a high framerate, not just higher screen and texture resolution. (Did NV have more G80 GPUs to sell than RAM available to buy? If they're still selling the high-end as complete cards or GPU+RAM combos, are they trying to raise their profit margins by reducing the amount of RAM? Or, if AIBs just buy the chips and maybe the PCBs, are they the ones trying to save on RAM costs? Or are either NV or the AIBs just using this as the easiest way to fill a price gap or to fight the X1950XT/X?) I'm not paying too much attention to the GTS-320 as a guide to future cards or game memory targets, not unless NV introduces a 192-bit bus as a new mainstream class standard.

I haven't followed Crysis too closely, but why would DX10/SM4 push more texture rather than shader-based "detail?" Or do you mean devs will now consider HDR's and even AA's extra memory usage in their detail and memory targets?

Me, I think devs will still set standards based on the broadest market segments available, and 320MB is an odd bird. I can see 128MB, 256MB, 512MB, and probably 768+MB (rather than 1GB) as standard targets in the near future. I'm skeptical about 1GB being a game dev target in the next two years, but maybe I'm giving the 768MB G80 too much credit (tho 384-bit is a logical progression from 256-bit, just like 24 from 16 "pipes," I'll wait til G80's refresh or replacement to see if NV sticks with it or if it was an acceptable compromise to get G80 out on 90nm and so far ahead of R600), or Tim Sweeney's comment too little.

And remember, I approach things like a cynical skeptic, so I'm waiting for benchmarks of 1GB cards before I consider it a RAM size as significant as "768+MB."

Man, I really with 3DEclipse was still up so I could crib off of--er, refer to Ail's VRAM usage article.

Edit: Yeah, I'm using SS2 as Serious Sam 2, and I'm not sure that its uncompressed texture setting was called Extreme, not am I bothered to Google it. :)

Forgive me but, SS2? Are we talking about Serious Sam 2 here? I don't recall seeing a setting containing the word 'extreme' anywhere in it (as Pete mentioned). Or was the word extreme merely used to signify it's overall 'extreme' vmem usage?

Just wanted to clear that up :smile:

So its pretty much we have overkill video cards for at least 2 years or so!

I understand most company's make backward comparability's even to DX7 hardware, just like Half-Life2 when it came out.

I also understand that you could lower the settings and run Crysis even maybe with using Radeon 9700/9800 series, but it doesn't mean that Crysis game would not be able to stress latest hardware that is currently available. :) :)

No worry s - I'm not smart or wise!

http://users.otenet.gr/~ailuros/Introduction.pdf

http://users.otenet.gr/~ailuros/DBPerf.pdf

http://users.otenet.gr/~ailuros/AFqnitpicks.pdf

http://users.otenet.gr/~ailuros/MCwithAA.pdf

http://users.otenet.gr/~ailuros/AAPerf.pdf

http://users.otenet.gr/~ailuros/TranspAAPerf.pdf

http://users.otenet.gr/~ailuros/Conclusion.pdf

here ya go I think these are what you are talking about, not sure though.

Dear Pete, this is my final post for this topic, but could you explain why in this game 8800GTS-320MB slower then 640MB version of GTS. Thanks....

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video.../gothic_af.gif

I cannot answer this question for you right now!

Some website said can't remember which one, that if you have Dell 24" inch or especially Dell 30" inch monitor, the 320MB-version of 8800GTS will be horribly slow.

I still believe 512MB or 640MB will be next soon. "But 768MB or 1GB will be Ok for now"

I cannot imagine why a single mid-range performance part, regardless of memory could be slow for gaming 1080P or 2560x1600.

....
....
....
:roll:

Remind me to kick someone in the nuts for the total absence of 3declipse LOL :D

***edit: Pete the vram usage article on the 7800GTX isn't available anymore anyway. I can however pass you the word file if you're interested; just PM me for that.

Shtal, without knowing Xbit's settings or even Gothic 3's VRAM recommendations I can't say definitively, but it sure looks like lack of RAM. Of course, that isn't a surprise, given how little VRAM the GTS-320 has compared to the other cards. According to Gamespot, Gothic 3's "Recommended" VRAM is 256MB. The framerate snob's rule of thumb is twice the recommended system specs for smooth performance, so 320MB comes up short. HW.fr has such nice comparison charts when it comes to these things.

Just like it's generally silly to strap 512MB RAM on a 9600 (except in the rare cases like maybe MMOs that gobble up VRAM but may not need a fillrate monster to be playable), so it seems similarly silly to ship an 8800 with less than 512MB.

But I'm sure you knew all that, so I'm not sure why you asked. If your point is that more VRAM is generally safer and better, then I can agree. But I hesitate to use extreme cases like uncompressed textures for minimal IQ gain as proof of what future games will require, because those future games will probably involve a lot of other performance variables (more specific than just "they'll run slower" :wink: ). I'm sure Crysis and lots of upcoming will use more VRAM in general, and specifically will probably require more than 512MB with high settings.

Razor1, thanks much for the links. I meant the VRAM usage article Ail mentioned, but the G80 article was also great, so no harm in linking it. :)