3D Board Naming (from ATI's new 2004 thread)

[KimB]

T2K, you're pulling this out of context.

I'm talking about the people who seem to think that the amount of memory is the most important measure of how good a graphics card is. These are the people that may think a 256MB GeForce FX 5200 would be a very nice video card.

Typically, high-end cards ship with enough memory to satisfy their fillrate. It is very rare that high-end video cards lose performance due to not having enough RAM. Because of this, the amount of RAM means next to nothing as an indicator of performance. The chipset and clockspeeds are much more important.

 

[T2k]

T2K, you're pulling this out of context.

I'm talking about the people who seem to think that the amount of memory is the most important measure of how good a graphics card is. These are the people that may think a 256MB GeForce FX 5200 would be a very nice video card.

That's true.
I agree with this part.

Typically, high-end cards ship with enough memory to satisfy their fillrate. It is very rare that high-end video cards lose performance due to not having enough RAM. Because of this, the amount of RAM means next to nothing as an indicator of performance. The chipset and clockspeeds are much more important.

I can't agree with this.
As I've said, everything depends on what and HOW you play... If you're a gamer like me, you know what I'm talking about here...

OFF
Gamer like me: I call us 'weekend gamers' We have no time for playing games but weekends and being/living like this, if we're playing, we want everything at max: perfect, flawless gaming experience, the highest level of details, res, fps, everything. (Yeah, no kids - yet - here... )

PS: Sometimes bigger is better, you know...

 

[rwolf]

T2K, you're pulling this out of context.

I'm talking about the people who seem to think that the amount of memory is the most important measure of how good a graphics card is. These are the people that may think a 256MB GeForce FX 5200 would be a very nice video card.

Typically, high-end cards ship with enough memory to satisfy their fillrate. It is very rare that high-end video cards lose performance due to not having enough RAM. Because of this, the amount of RAM means next to nothing as an indicator of performance. The chipset and clockspeeds are much more important.

Keep in mind that lots of current games aren't designed around 256MB cards. Look what happens when the game takes advantage of the extra ram.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/call_of_duty_ati/page8.asp

 

[KimB]

I'll just make one final statement.

Would you suggest purchasing, say, a 128MB Radeon 9800 vs. a 256MB Radeon 9700? (if such existed, of course....)

In the majority of games, the higher-clocked part would still do better. Yes, there are a few cases where the 256MB part would do better, but those are rare, and not worth buying a video card over.

 

[cthellis42]

I go with clocks for the most part (at least 128 vs. 256), though it's getting more and more to the point where that extra 128 will kick in. And if you know you're buying with the next 2+ years in mind... <shrugs> Will probably make a lot more difference in the end, so folk might want to weigh it higher when comparing prices. I just tend to find options for $100+ cheaper, and don't think it's worth the upcharge for the extra RAM. Get closer to $50 and... <shrugs>

 

[AlphaWolf]

I'll just make one final statement.

Would you suggest purchasing, say, a 128MB Radeon 9800 vs. a 256MB Radeon 9700? (if such existed, of course....)

In the majority of games, the higher-clocked part would still do better. Yes, there are a few cases where the 256MB part would do better, but those are rare, and not worth buying a video card over.

Well there are advantages to 256 mb in some situations, but on lower end parts there is often actually a disadvantage.

If you look at a 256 mb high end part, it will benefit running games over a similar equipped 128 mb card at high resolutions with AA/AF enabled. The extra ram isn't actually hurting it.

With many of the lower/middle range products the cards with more ram are actually using slower ram, which is inhibiting their normal ability, while the benefit the extra ram would offer is almost nil because they are mostly incapable of running games at high resolutions with AA/AF.

Also some of these low end 256 mb cards are selling for almost the same price as their 128mb counterparts. The average consumer looks at it and believes he is getting a better deal when it may in fact be hurting his performance.

 

[DoS]

T2K, you're pulling this out of context.

I'm talking about the people who seem to think that the amount of memory is the most important measure of how good a graphics card is. These are the people that may think a 256MB GeForce FX 5200 would be a very nice video card.

Typically, high-end cards ship with enough memory to satisfy their fillrate. It is very rare that high-end video cards lose performance due to not having enough RAM. Because of this, the amount of RAM means next to nothing as an indicator of performance. The chipset and clockspeeds are much more important.

So true.
I know many of my colleagues (network admins, developers - ppl who actually know a lot of stuff about computers and software) who don't play games (or just play very few and old games) and when they want to tell if a video card is any good they look at the amount of onboard memory
Go figure...