512MB vs 256MB GPU

any considerable difference between 512mb and 256mb nvidia gf7600 ? Thanks for the answers...

 

Not really, no. The 7600 doesn't have enough bandwidth to efficiently make use of 512MB of RAM.

 

the sneaky bastards...

 

No difference except they charge you $150 extra for the 512mb version.

 

As others have said the GeForce Go 7600 doesn't have enough power to use 512MB of RAM. In fact, studies have shown that even graphics cards as powerful as a desktop GeForce 7950GT don't benefit from 512MB of RAM.

To pre-empt future questions, with the desktop GeForce 8600GTS looking to have the performance of a GeForce 7950GT, it to won't be able to use more than 256MB of RAM effectively. This also means that the even weaker Go 8600 won't benefit from 512MB of RAM.

 

Your talking today's games.

The higher texture resolution, the more texture ram is needed.

If you want to play tommorows games, 512 is needed. AT LEAST.

 

Maybe so, not going to argue about future requirements; but, the 7600 just doesn't effectively make use of 512, not matter the game or time frame.

 

Well it doesn't really matter whether it's today's games or tomorrow's, because if the textures do get bigger to need 512MB of RAM, something like the Go 7600 or even the GeForce 7950GT or 8600 would either be starved memory bandwidth or have insufficient TMU power to push those larger textures even if 512MB of RAM was available.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gigabyte-foxconn-gf7950gt_15.html

Besides, even in Oblivion which is supposed to be a future indicator, at a resolution of 1920x1200 which is very decent, a GeForce 7950GT shows no benefit from having 512MB of RAM since it's too underpowered. In only 4 out of 19 tests does the GeForce 7950GT show any benefit from 512MB of RAM, but it's really only 2 if you discount Serious Sam 2, which supposedly has poor memory management leading to memory inflation, and Gothic 3 where the game is unplayable anyways.

 

Thats a unmodified oblivion though. That is what they use in all their tests.

One with a modified texture pack (Which sadly, new games will have bigger textures), is the real indicator.

 

I suppose. The thing is, just with regular Oblivion, the GeForce 7950GT just manages 30fps outdoors at 1280x1024, which is relatively low notadays. With bigger textures, the performance would drop lower and be unplayable regardless of video memory size.

 

If DX10 helps even a little, it'll offset a bit of it.

Also having a more powerful video card then a 7950gt helps too (like an 8800 gts 640 at the least)

If DX10 even helps a little, the most important thing for the near future will be DX10 and alot of video memory.

If DX10 helps alot, well then, perhaps all you may need for awhile is a 8600gts.

My guide I made on the desktop forum is counting on DX10 not helping a whole lot, or helping just a bit.. If somehow it does, even then, you'll need the texture memory.

 

Well in terms of GPUs more powerful than the 7950GT, I was mainly considering mid-range cards like the 8600GTS which looks to be about the same speed and the Go 8600 which will be slower than the 7950GT. High-end GPUs can certainly use more than 256MB of RAM.

The interesting thing about DX10 is that it seems to allow to to get away with having less memory. By default, Vista dynamically allocates system RAM to the graphics card just like a HyperMemory implementation. (In fact, ATI has it in their marketing that they helped Microsoft develop this system based on HyperMemory). Obviously it isn't quite the same thing as dedicated memory, but I wonder how that will effect how games determine minimum system requirements in the future. I guess they would say something like 128MB dedicated + 128MB shared instead of just 128MB dedicated as a minimum.

 

If you have in your collection games such as Flight Simulator X or Stalker it would be better to use a 512mb GPU.

 

I think there's a noticeable difference, personally, if you were to compare the same graphics card 256MB versus 512MB..

I've got a 512MB 7950GTX though, so who am I to talk... >.>

 

I've got a 256Mb go 7900GTX, but i'm not sure my card is much slower than a 512Mb go 7900GTX

 

I remember reading a comparison between the 256mb and 512mb X850XT - there was only literally, 1 or 2 frames in the difference. If a card that powerful was not able to utilize 512mb of memory....Basically, I wouldn't worry about such issues unless you were looking at extremely high end cards.

 

it wud depend on the card and the game that you are running. a 512MB go7600 wont perform any better than its 256MB version simply cuz the card wont really utilise that much. but for higher end cards, the extra RAM gives the card more potential but as i said it depends on the card and game.

 

You can find the info right here on this very thread that clearly demonstrates that the extra RAM is of little value in even the high end cards. And I now have another most excellent site logged into my favorites!

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...7950gt_15.html

 

hmm, i really gotta disagree here, although i know that the 7600 doesn't really have enough power to use all of the 512, i have used a 256 7800 and a 512 7600 both systems haveing 1 gig of ram and i have noticed a difference in the "feel" of the game. the 7600, while less powerful "feels" better. especially with the problem of turning around too quickly, the 7600 just feels more lucid. i don't thing the difference is 150$ better, but i might pay a little extra to get it.

 

There won't be a very noticeable difference in performance.
The only major benefit of 512MB is being able to use the highest texture settings in upcoming games.