1GB vs. 512MB GPU Debate

Some laptops that are about to come out, like the Clevo M860TU, are going to have a native resolution of 1920 x 1200p, which will make any picture ridiculously clear, especially for games, but I was having a talk with my cousin about the importance of memory in GPU's.

He's insanely good with computers (he's an engineer and has always been a gamer so he uses them a lot) and he says that graphics cards with 512MB of memory can completely handle the pixel density of a 1920 x 1200p resolution screen and that getting the upgrade to get 1GB is wasting memory. Basically what he said is that you'd only be using that amount of memory if the pixel density was greater than a 1920 x 1200p resolution, which, up to date, has not happened on a laptop. He also said that graphics card speed is different than its memory, which I hadn't really considered before.

Is he correct in saying that 512MB of memory can support that pixel density?

Thanks

 

Unless you're using an uber-high quality texture pack for an insanely intense game, you're not going to surpass 512 Mb of VRAM.

 

He's insanely good with computers (he's an engineer and has always been a gamer so he uses them a lot) and he says that graphics cards with 512MB of memory can completely handle the pixel density of a 1920 x 1200p resolution screen
he is totally right, even a X3100 integrated GPU can handle that kind of resolution, it depends on your task.
and that getting the upgrade to get 1GB is wasting memory.
Corrected.
Basically what he said is that you'd only be using that amount of memory if the pixel density was greater than a 1920 x 1200p resolution, which, up to date, has not happened on a laptop.
not entirely right, some future games might require 1GB of ram, ie crysis 2?
He also said that graphics card speed is different than its memory, which I hadn't really considered before.
there are 3 different clockings.
Is he correct in saying that 512MB of memory can support that pixel density?
even a 128MB GPU will do.

 

Well, if you took the question that way, then you need (assuming 32-bit color):

1920x1200 = 2304000
2304000 x 32 = 73728000
= 72 Megabits
= 10 Megabytes of memory.

 

Thanks for the responses. Knowing that then, what should I look for in a future graphics card power-wise. I was always under the impression that the amount of memory (not only GPU but also RAM) was what determined FPS on some hyper-intensive games like Crysis on max settings but apparently that's far from the case. My cousin said it's more of an issue of the latency of the RAM, not how much of it you have in terms of GB, and how powerful the entire processor is. He didn't say much else about videocards.

How do you tell how fast a GPU will be if the majority of the time the only spec listed is the amount of VRAM?

 

Look up it's specs?

 

for more information, read this sticky: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=260403

 

Thanks powerpack, but now that I'm at the specs (card I'm looking at right now is nVidia 9500m) I don't know exactly what I'm looking at.

Is there a post already up about the individual clocks of graphics cards and what they do?

I've been reading around here since I posted this originally and apparently even the most intense current-gen games like Crysis can be easily run at 2GB of RAM on a 512MB card, but then what about the GPU increases framerate? (Not taking CPU into consideration).

 

Find the GPU you want here then click it for info. Or here.

 

for laptop card, only 8800m GTX can run it smoothly, and we are talking about 1680x1050 or lower.

 

Thanks a lot for the help everybody, I know a lot more about GPU's now and hopefully I can use that knowledge to find a better graphics card when I get my next laptop
Awesome link powerpack, helps a lot.

 

GPUs can be fairly confusing because their specifications do not always relate directly to their performance. Within a single product line (Nvidia/ATI), you technically just need to look at the number designating the graphics card.

After you find the newest/highest initial number (thousands place), look at the hundreds place. With either ATI or Nvidia, their high-performance cards are always in the 800s or above. Anything below that, such as the 600s, are considered performance cards, followed by things at 400 or below, value cards.

Thankfully, AMD/ATI switched their system so current GPUs from them (3000 series and newer) only use numbers to designate each graphics card. Nvidia is still using suffixes like GTX or GS. A quick rundown, after you get to a certain hundreds place, the suffixes (Nvidia) go from more powerful to less powerful in this order: GX2 > GTX > GTS > GT > GS > G.

Or, you could skip learning all of this crazy stuff and just come here and ask! We'll steer you in the right direction.

 

currently, 512 is the sweet spot for memory capacity. for example, the 256 version 8800gt performs quite bad comparing to the 512 8800gt.
I think the gpu market should really be regulated more, too many consumers are getting confused and end up buying a 512 hd 2400 for hardcore gaming.

 

It is false to say that games can only make use of 512MB of VRAM. Rather, games are currently being optimized to use 512MB of VRAM on the high end. Even though a 1920X1200 screen buffer is only ~10MB, there could easily be 100 textures that get composed in to that frame. Obviously, if those textures are only 3MB each on average, it will fit in 300MB VRAM, but there is no fundemental reason those textures couldn't be, say 50MB each, thus needing 5000MB VRAM. Therefore, a more correct statement would be that with the current generation of games, more than 512MB of VRAM is generally overkill.

Edit: Well, there is a soft ceiling on how big those textures could be as they still have to be processed, but it holds true that there is no hard and fast reason that the textures couldn't be that large.

 

Woah there.

The 256 and 512 8600M GTs perform pretty much the same.....

 

The amount of usable Vram is also dependant on Bus width, what GPU it actually is and what the clocks are.

 

you need the extra vram if you're doing intense photo and video editting. you make use of 1 gig if you're doing so. as for gaming 1 gig of vram isn't needed just yet.

 

The extra vram will not help with video editing.

 

dude,you're not paying attention...
He mentioned the 8800 GT, desktop card!

 

in a sense that you have a good processor, yeah i see what you're saying. but i don't mean mashing videos together and calling that a movie. cgi stuff requires some decent gpu's.

 

Doh, I've been too busy thinking about his 8600M GT/GS issue.

My bad.

 

CGI isn't video editing. That's video rendering. Quite a large difference there.