1GB vs 512MB Graphics Card

I'm looking at the NVidia GTS 250 512 MB and 1 GB models, and the ATI 4870 512 and 1 GB models. My monitor will only be 1680x1050 and from what I've read the 512mb will be fine, but I'm more curious of how it will scale with newer games coming out like Mass Effect 2. Will I want the 1GB model for future gaming or will 512mb be fine?

On a side note, I've only used Nvidia graphics cards before. Will an ATI one work in a machine that uses Nvidia or do I need a certain motherboard or AMD cpu to even use ATI cards?

Thanks!

 

512 MB is more than enough. 1 GB is really useful for simulation programs like CAD. 1 GB is almost never used in games (maybe GTA 4 at 1920x1200 but I can't think of any other examples.)

 

Awesome, that's what I've assumed from what I've read so far. I am just more curious about future gaming.

 

You can use ATI cards as long as you have the right mobo slot (PCI-e in this case). At 1680x1050 you don't need more than a 512mb HD4870. With my sig rig I can max out any game except for GTA IV (it doesn't let me increase settings because i only have 512mb vram). Even Crysis runs at very high with no AA and gets 30-35 fps average.

 

I agree that 1GB isn't really useful for most games, apps. The 4870 is a much better card than the GTS 250 by all accounts (although NVIDIA has generally driver support).

 

I always thought and was told that the memory does not make a difference but it was the bus size that mattered.

 

It much more about what card it is then the memory. For example my 8600M GT 512MB is worse than a 9600m gt 256mb.

 

Is this the GTS 250M, wasn't that just released? Or the desktop chip..

 

It doesn't matter how much memory your card has, but how fast that memory is. GDDR3 > DDR2 as a rule of thumb.

 

More memory is useful for higher resolutions.

 

is it 128 Bit or 256 bit?
Only 256 bit can utilize all 512Mb, and only 512 bit can utilize all 1Gb.
Higher memory means nothing if the bus interface is low.

 

512mb is fine for mid ranged cards, you wont be playing games at settings to need more than that, but for top end cards (ATI 4870 and Nvidia GTX280) especially in dual card configurations 1GB of VRAM will at some point come to a great advantage to you, as you will have the power to crank up games to there max settings, and in those higher settings they do consume more than 512mb of VRAM.

 

It's better to have than not to have for high end cards. For mid ranged cards it won't matter.

 

Well, from what I have read, even 1 gb is not enough for 2560×1600 ~ display resolutions, but both 512 mb and 1 gb are enough for 1920x1200 ~ display resloutions.

 

512 is enough, i think GTA 4 doesn't use that much vram.
what rockstar did with setup is predicting the memory so that you will have better performance. this is what i thing and i don't believe in game memory calculator.
I have my textures at high and it works only 1-2 fps slower from what i have seen. i have to change the CPU to get better performance because even at low setting i get the same fps.

 

The HD4870 512M and 1 GB Models have a difference- The 1GB model has a improved redesigned PCB by ATI.

 

I am leaving this thread open as alot of the information coming out of here are closely related to notebook GPUs. But for future reference, please post desktop related questions over at Desktopreview.com.

Thank you,
Johnny T - NBR Moderation Team

 

I have an option between two laptops having the exact same specs except for the graphics card.

Sony Vaio FW590---C2D P8700, 320GB 7200 HDD, 4 GB ram,16.4" screen (1600 x 900 resolution)

But the graphics card memory is different,ie, one has a HD4650 512mb DDR3 and the other a HD4650 1GB DDR3.

The difference in price is about 100$. So what do you guys say should I pay the xtra for the 1GB graphics card or will the 512mb suffice for gaming.

 

^ No you shouldn't. Having 1Gb of VRAM would only be useful for very high resolutions(around 1900*1200 or 1920*1080 and past) or games with lots of textures and physics(Crysis and GTA4). While the HD4650 is a good GPU, it'll struggle in both those scenarios so the 1Gb of VRAM would essentially be more or less useless(as in not used) in 90% of situations.

 

The 512MB version will be just fine. Any games that would run well with the 1GB version will run pretty much just as well with 512MB, and any games that the 512MB version can't run, won't be any better with 1GB.

 

thanks for helping out.

I read in the previous posts that the 128bit bus speed is a bottleneck when comparing the 1GB and the 512mb variants. So how does this work??

Does it mean that I will face difficulties while playing GTA4/Crysis or similar games in the 1600x900 resolution because I only have a 512mb.

Also is it possible for me to use this laptop for playing HD movies in my Plasma tv.

 

Makes no difference for those applications.

 

The bus size is basically how much information can be written in a single cycle.

The bus size won't affect how much memory can be addressed. However, it does indicate memory bandwidth as well a is a general performance indicator(smaller bus width GPUs are only made strong enough for smaller amounts of data transfer).

Think of a GPU like a trucking company. It has to carry information from one place to another. How much information it can transport in a given amount of time will determine its performance just as a trucking company's efficiency is determined.

A GPU has many components:
- shaders = the amount of trucks
- clocks = the speed of each truck
- memory interface = size of the trucks
- bus size = amount of lanes available on the highways
- VRAM = the size of the warehouse the information is being deposited in

The more(or higher) of each component, the better the overall performance of the GPU. Basically, the bus size(or amount of lanes) will not determine how much can be deposited in the warehouse, but it will affect the overall efficiency as it slows down how much can be deposited in a given amount of time. Therefore, if you did need a large amount of information deposited in your "warehouse", a smaller bus size would eventually cripple the whole operation.

The amount of VRAM(or the size of the warehouse) won't be a problem if your whole GPU(trucking company) has trouble bringing in the amount of data into said warehouse.

 

So does it mean that both the cards will perform similarly considering that they have the same bus size and clock speed.

Also will the entire 512mb be used up when playing games like GTA4/Crysis.

 

Yes it means they will perform roughly the same.

And the amount of VRAM used up will depend on the resolution you're playing at. Higher resolution means that more VRAM is used. If you're scared that 512mb won't be enough for those games, know that you need a very high resolution to bottleneck 512mb of VRAM and that the games you mentioned wouldn't even play properly on such high resolutions with an HD4650 so it won't be a problem for you.

 

thanks for helping out

 

I have to disagree with the folks saying GTA4 doesn't actually use all the RAM it predicts. Sure, you can play in -norestrictions mode, but it sure seems to me like you take a performance hit when your VRAM is maxed out. Also, even at 1680x1050 with a fast dual-core, my mobility HD4850 is bottlenecked by VRAM, so a superior card (as a desktop 4870/GTS 250) would definitely enjoy the extra VRAM.

I know this isn't a conclusive study http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=5326088#post5326088, but note the results on this page. The HD4850 and GTX260 are virtually identical in almost every game, but GTA4 shows a large gap. I know it could be other things (CPU cache, nvidia/ati favor, etc.), but I think the fact that the test was run using an estimated ~800-900 MB of VRAM was a big part of the reason.

 

^^^ Does this apply when you consider a mid-range card like HD4650 with a 128 bus.

 

No. An HD4650 would bog down due to GPU power before you got your settings high enough to require that much VRAM.

 

I'm not saying VRAM is useless, but you need a GPU capable enough to run games at the settings where that much VRAM is needed. For most games at modest settings, 512mb will be enough bar the power hungry ones.

 

Regardless of video card OR whether its a desktop or mobile GPU, the amount of RAM is one of the LEAST useful indicators of performance.

The most important factor is the GPU itself and whether it will actually have enough oomph to play a game at the resolutions and texture depths you will USE the RAM for.

Having 1GB+ of texture RAM on a "value" (or even mid-range) GPU is like having a spoiler on a otherwise unmodified economy car. Even downhill with a tailwind you just aren't getting any real use out of the extra RAM. It doesn't hurt most of the time, but for most applications your other bottlenecks hurt you a lot more than texture RAM.

Memory bus speed is also often overstated as well.
Yes, 256-bit is indeed better than 128-bit in most cases, but its not a hard and fast rule like most seem to think it is. The GPU itself and the hardware the RAM is paired with matter a great deal more than the memory, the memory bus, or any other factor. The 8700m had a 128-bit bus and eventually beat the 256-bit 7950GTX when drivers matured.

-Do not be concerned with RAM amount
-Be concerned with GPU and what it is capable of
-If GPUs have similar performance, THEN ask what features it has (like memory bus, memory type, clocks)

 

You only need above 512Mb if you running High resolutions with AA.

Riva Tuner and XP will tell you how much you are using.
IN WIC with 1920x1080 With AA X2 I Use about 750-800MB
On a 1GB 8800GTX

 

why everytime i read a gpu debate one extremely important aspect of a video card is left out Raster Operations aka Rops. this is pretty much the reason the gtx 260m and 9800m gts are similar in performance the rop are both at 16 even thought the 260m has almost double the shader count. why in the world they are at 16 is beyond me they could have easily gone higher. look at how many the ati 58xx series has quite a difference no? this is the reason why the low range cards perform so terribly even if the bit rate and clocks were the same or higher. back in the day of the nvidia 7900 series you could take a 7900 gt and give the core more voltage.with that extra voltage you could easily reach 7900 gtx performance because the rops were both exactly the same. i havent looked into current video card architecture but if it hasnt changed drastically then rops are pretty much the reason why these so called million shader cards dont run that much faster then lower shader count cards. vram doesnt really matter that much and the bitrate on the vram is kinda subjective at this point because lets say you have a card with 512mb gddr3 vram at 256 bit and another card with 512mb gddr5 vram at 128 bit. which one is faster? the answer is the gddr5 one by a negligible bit.

there is also texture units to consider