256MB NVIDIa GeForce Go 7600 or 512MB NVIDIA GeForce Go 7600?

I'm buying a HP DV9000t and have the option between a 256MB NVIDIa GeForce Go 7600 or 512MB NVIDIA GeForce Go 7600. I'm not a gamer but I do a lot of photo editing with Photo Shop CS. Is there any advantage for me to go to the 512mb instead of the 256mb or am I throwing money ($125 difference) away.

Any advise is appreciated.

 

The 256MB Nvidia is 128MB dedicated + 128MB shared with RAM. The 512MB version is 256MB dedicated + 256MB shared with RAM. The 512MB would be a bit faster, not that much difference and also it'll slow down your computer even more since it steals twice as more RAM as the 256MB version. Since you're not a gamer, the 256MB one would be more than enough.

 

The 256 MB Go 7600 is dedicated memory, it doesn't borrow from system RAM.

 

No advantage, go for the cheaper model. Or opt for getting 2gb of memory if you are going to be running Photoshop. (Makes a difference I can say over 1gb)

 

The 512mb 7600 go cant utilize the 512 effectively and gets just about the same benchmarks as the 256mb version. And even though it is irrelevent, 'hypermemory' (the 1/2 shared in some cards) does not slow down your computer because that memory is only used during heavy 3D rendering where you would be using that RAM anyways. In no way does it 'slow down' your computer.

 

No, I'm positive the 256MB is 128MB dedicated and 128MB integrated.

-Ask Chaz

 

Thanks for the replies...I ordered the 256mb card.

 

I think if its 128 MB shared, then it says TurboCache with it. dv9000t has DISCRETE 256MB memory... so its NOT shared. I've seen cards which specifically announce that they are TurboCached...

 

Psst.... hes trying to back pedal.

he forgot his < sarcasam > tags

 

i agree with scarface. nvidia would say turbocache and ati would say hypermemory if it wasn't all dedicated or "discrete"

 

The ATI Mobility™ Radeon® X1600 with up to 512 MB of HyperMemory™ (128 MB of dedicated GDDR2 VRAM)3, delivers advanced 3D graphics, high-quality video playback and enhanced visual realism

thought that was interesting... if that's true then we are all wrong haha

 

The 256mb Go7600 in the dv8000t and 9000t has 256mb of dedicated ram. None shared.

 

Because nVidia's system memory sharing solution is hardware based, it doesn't show up in their mid and high end hardware where it would be irrelevant.

Go 7600s have dedicated RAM only. Period.

Though you can certainly imagine my surprise at having 512MB of video RAM at my disposal in a 14" laptop.

 

Does anyone have links to this information? I know it's been said that the go 7600 can't utilize 512 MB of VRAM. I'd be interested to see this side by side comparison of data.

 

Try doing a Google search on the comparable desktop models. Being able to utilize 512 MB of texture memory requires that the card have memory bandwidth to feed it. It's the Ferrari engine in a Focus syndrome. 512 MB is useful only if you're running at super high resolutions (1600x1200 and higher), and at that point, the 7600 is too slow. You would see an improvement, but it would be from something like 10 fps on a 256 MB 7600 to 20 with 512.

 

There's no way the card will be able to effectively utilise all of the 512MB because it just doesn't have the bandwidth, however the extra memory can't hurt either. Just because it can't use the full extra 256MB doesn't mean to say that it won't ever occasionally dip into some of it and the less time thrashing system memory the better. I'd never pay more than a token amount for the extra RAM but its not something that is going to detract a sale either and considering some laptops come with it as standard (like the Zepto I'll be buying) its a nice little bonus.

Just for the record, in this case I'd just go for the 256MB option because the possible performance increase isn't worth the extra expense required.

 

Yeah I've seen some information about 256 MB vs. 512 MB 7900 GTX's (desktops). Apparently the performance increases were larger when running in higher resolutions.

I was just wondering if there was anything specific to the 7600-level, where the card's performance seems to be closer to the threshold where the extra VRAM wouldn't do anything more.

 

Some 256mb's have 128mb and others have 64mb of dedicated. Some 512mb's have 256 dedicated and others have 128...

I wonder, do you guys think 512mb would matter for Windows Vista?

 

If you asked Chaz, he most probably would tell you that Go 7600 doesn't support TurboCache at all.

The 512MB version of the Go 7600 is not worth paying for... There is no real advantage unless you find that 512MB dedicated sounds good. So, just don't waste your money

Other than that, the "photo editing with Photo Shop" is CPU/RAM intensive not GPU and you don't really need a dedicated video card for photoshoping

Period.

 

Dreamer is right; the 512MB Go7600 is not worth paying for if you have to.

Currently I have a notebook with a Core 2 Duo T7400, 2GB RAM, and a 512MB Go7600. It gets 3050 3DMarks in 3DMark05 with stock 350:350 clocks (it's low, I know). The Compal HEL80 I tested in July had a Core Duo T2500, 1GB of RAM, and 256MB Go7600 and it got 3,046 marks with the same clocks. No difference.

 

I think the 512mb is going to matter for Windows Vista performance, for sure. You won't see the Directx10 effects, but designers are going move some of the traditional CPU tasks over to the GPU in the next year or so (including the geometry shader and other functions) because the new graphics engine in Vista draws from the GPU more than the CPU memory.

Check out this quote, ""It remains to be seen just how well actual DX10 graphics hardware will be able to handle the additional work, but we've seen in the past that ATI and Nvidia have been able to deliver whenever games have shifted work from the CPU to the GPU.""

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6143883/p-4.html

 

There are some specific cases where 512mb of vram will matter, but they're almost all involved in gaming at high resolution (1600x1200+)with heavy amounts of anisotropic filtering and antialiasing. The thing is, the 7600 is not powerful enough to actually use those settings for that memory to matter. Total waste of money.

Now, if it were a 6800, 7800 or 7900 or derivative, then it's an issue. As an example, Doom3 at 1600x1200 maximum detail with aa and af -needs- 512mb of vram to run properly, or you see a huge framerate drop going from 512mb to 256mb on the same settings and otherwise the same video card. Since the 7600 really isn't geared to play high demand games at insane resolutions like that, you would never run into a situation demanding that kind of ram. You would encounter a bottleneck at the card's ability to process that kind of load at the GPU and pipeline level, not the memory. It's really neither practical or necissary for that game to run at that high a resolution anyway.

For something like oblivion, again, the bottleneck is at the GPU and not the memory. Save your money for more ram or a better hard drive or something more worthwile.

 

geforce go 7600 is all dedicated

- ask Chaz

512 or 256...there is no difference in Core Clock, Shader Clock, Memory Clock or anything. Except the extra 256 mb ram wgich is really pointless cause it isnt a huge deal better.

 

Why does mine say

751 mb total available graphics memory?>

 

You're using Vista right? It allocates extra resources to the GPU in case of massive texture emergency.

 

And this uses HD space?

 

Nope, it takes it from your system ram if it needs to.

 

In regards to whether 512MB of VRAM is needed for mid-range GPUs, the answer is it is not.

I should probably mention that 3DMarks are not a good judge of this regardless because 3DMark05 was designed to fit completely in 128MB of VRAM so even having 256MB will be of little benefit. 3DMark06 begins to benefit from 256MB but I doubt it completely fills it so 512MB VRAM won't show any benefit here either.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gigabyte-foxconn-gf7950gt.html

In reality, even a GPU as powerful as a desktop GeForce 7950GT sees no benefit going from 256MB to 512MB of VRAM. That means even the next generation mid-range GPUs like the Go 8600 will show virtually no advantage with 512MB of VRAM. The Go 8600 has been speculated as being comparable to the Go 7900GS, but the latter isn't as powerful as the desktop GeForce 7950GT, which already doesn't should any benefit from 512MB of VRAM. It's pretty clear that the only reason manufacturers include 512MB of VRAM in mid-range GPUs and even mid/high-end GPUs is as a marketing feature only and that will be the case first generation DX10 GPUs as well.

Personally, my opinion of why 512MB of VRAM appears in mid-range mobile parts at all is because nVidia needed something to differentiate them from ATI. ATI managed to ship the MR X1600 a few months ahead of the Go 7600 and the MR X1600 generally outperformed nVidia's part too. So nVidia decided to push 512MB VRAM with the Go 7600 so that people would say "oh the Go 7600 must be faster than the 256MB MR X1600, because it has 512MB of VRAM". It may not really matter doing that for desktop systems, but really there is little consumer benefit for laptops since besides cost, we also have to deal with higher power consumption, although admittedly it's probably not that big an increase.

 

7600GT is 128bit. The 128bit will cripple the 7600GT so no point in getting larger memory whose main purpose IS to game at higher resolution (more textures etc).

 

Scarface is definately right, search around the forums. You'll find a couple of topics on this. It'll say using Hypermemory technology if ATi and Turbocache if Nvidia. 1/2 the VRAM if it says this... Video mem taken from RAM is nigh on useless.

 

Hey Guys, I have the exact same computer (HP DV9000t) and went with the 512 NVIDIA and there is a big difference. I'm running over 700mb's of video memory. I had the 256 with a slightly slower processor and I have seen a huge difference with both Photoshop CS3 as well as Microsoft Flight Simulator 10. Just as a reference, I'm running 3gb's of ram, which HP tells you that you can't do. I also have the T7200 processor.

 

your wrong the 7200 has 64mb dedicated 192 shared and the 7400 has 128 dedicated and 128 shared http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...MEWN:IT&viewitem=&item=270135047441&rd=1&rd=1 go there and look at that motherboard it clearly has 4 peices of ddr2 on the board