9600M GT reporting 504mb... where's my other 8mb?

I got a new lappy with a 9600M GT with 512mb... but when I check system/gpu information under 3dmark06...

NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT Driver 7.15.11.7785

Description NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT
Manufacturer NVIDIA
Total Local Video Memory 504 MB
Total Local Texture Memory 504 MB
AGP Aperture Size 1.75 GB
Driver File nvd3dum.dll
Driver Version 7.15.11.7785
Driver Date 8-7-2008
Driver WHQL Certified true
Max Texture Width 8192 px
Max Texture Height 8192 px
Max User Clipping Planes 8

What's up with total video memory of 504mb!? Where's my other 8 megs ;x

Anyone else seeing this, or is it just me? Is the other 8mb reserved somewhere else or what? I feel gimped w/o my 8mb, even though with a 128-bit bus I heard it wouldn't be able to utilize much of it after 256mb... still...

 

Try running GPU-Z.

 

Whilst odd, I really wouldn't bother yourself too much about it 512mb for mid-range cards is usally excess anyways... and 8meg isn't exactly anything to worry about either

Quite possible that it's just reporting wrong It seems incredibly less likely there was a build issue which... resulted in you losing 8 megs Lol.

 

I concur, the application is probably reporting it wrong. Check the video card's properties.

 

While odd, the card won't fully utilize more than 256mb anyway.

 

yeah, its true that my card wont be able to fully utilize 512mb of ram, but the fact that my laptop is only 2 weeks old and already has a defect (minor or not) is bugging me... lol.

Well, gpu-z and all others report 512mb... just dont understand why 3dmark reports 504 >.>;;

thanks for the replies~

 

I'm not so sure I believe this statement. The 600 series graphic cards (6600, 7600, 8600) have always been considered "midrange", which means they don't please you if you are an above average gamer seeking a more fluid and detailed graphical rendition on graphics utilizing programs. However, the 9600 gt, for a number of significant reasons (read reviews about it), should be considered an exemption. Yes, it is still a "midrange" graphic card, but unlike its predecessors, it can actually run the latest graphically intense programs on an above average performance. I believe it is certainly capable of utilizing more than 256 mb.

 

Of course it will use the rest of the vRAM, but after 256mb there is a fairly steep diminishing return and it still applies to the 9600 even though not as much so as for an 8600.

 

Well, This is wierd. I have 9600M GT 512MB , and cannot seem to run World Of Warcraft of FULL settings, with 20-30 FPS.. I have 4 GB's of RAM.

 

DirkDIGGER.....u beta check ur system....................i have a 9600n GT wd 4 gigs and can run WOW comfortably................

 

Yah I can run it. But i am not getting 40-50 FPS like I thought i would.

 

Same here, with 60fps.

 

Blah, I'm missing something here.. I have a MSI GX360 With AMD Anthlon X2 Duo Core 64 2.0GHz, 4GB RAM, 512MB GeForce 9600M GT.

I have a turbo Button that supossedly overclocks the system by 15%, yet i am having trouble running a game like world of warcraft in Full Settings.

 

Well.........your specks r pretty decent..............is your turbo button working fine?...........................

 

Yah, it lights up and I hear the sound go higher, I don't know if its the fan or what not.

And what is with the ....................................................

 

whats wid da what????????????????

 

What settings are you running it at? what resolution?

 

i manage to run it on a 1280 res.........with med-to high settings and i get playable framerates................i'l tell u what try runnig a memory defrag and try again...............

 

He's talking about your elipses there, stonesrubber. Theres no need for them, why dont you just end a sentence with a full stop? Try and stop, they annoy me when Im reading posts.

And also, the 9600m GT wont be able to use more than 256MB of vRam PERIOD. You can't say "you think" or "you feel" that it can, it just can't. Its a 128 bit card, simple as that.

 

It probably got lost in shipping. What condition was the packaging in when you got it?

 

This thread is hilarious.

 

its taking a vacation.

 

We have ourselves a winner!

 

hey, I been actually thinking of getting the same laptop that you have to play wow( HP dv5-1011EA/UK dv5t..if that's what you use). And I see that you get 60fps while playing wow so I was wondering at was resolution do you play on? As well as if you could tell me your settings too



Thanks!

 

The memory bandwidth rule (in MB/s) is bus width * frequency (mhz). A 128bits bus doesn't have enough bandwidth. If it had GDDR3/4/5 @2400mhz maybe but it's not the case. The basic rule, although there can be exeptions, is max memory=2x bus width. So a 128bits card uses 256mb, a 256bits card uses 512mb etc...
The simpliest exemple are the G80 8800s & the 8800GS/9600GS.
8800GTS: 320bits -> 320 & 640mb flavors
8800GTX: 384bits->768mb
8800GS/9600GS: 192bits (IIRC?)->192 & 384mb editions
Now, the G92 8800s and 9800s have a 256bits bus and 512mb of memory. The 9800GX2 has an 2 256bits effective bus so a 512bits one and guess what? It comes with 1GB of memory.

Although this isn't official anywhere, I found it by myself and it just fits too well to be untrue.

The 8600M GT DDR2 usually comes with 512 or even 1024MB of memory while it can actually only uses ~200MB
This may change in the future though. I read GDDR5 has higher bandwidth for the same speed as GDDR3 so we could see 1GB 256bits card maybe

 

Why does it come with 512 or 1024MB if it only uses ~200MB? Marketing? I'm not questioning you, just curious because I know nothing about graphics cards.

 

Ppphhh, Rubbish!

It does, I'm not sure why some people (many on NBR) assume the bus width has anything to do with the VRAM amount a card can handle, but a 128bit card will utilize 1024Mb or ram, if the resolution and texture requirements need it too. Anything else is copy and pasted rhetoric.

Latest example are games like GTAIV which will use everybit of the VRAM to fill up with textures and objects. Other professional applications like 3DCoat, Mudbox and Modo can also bring videocard requirements to it's knees. Further proof when developing shows certain CUDA or GPGPU algorithms need 512Mb to show any advantage on the GPU compared to CPU.

Having said all that, for most current games any more than 512Mb @1200x800 resolution often won't show much advantage in the speed, and nor should it. Having more memory is not about being faster, but allowing you to do things one couldn't do without the extra memory. Doing more, does not always equate to doing it faster!

It's not different in looking at System ram, 8Gb won't be faster than 4Gb, unless the task requires more than 4Gb to begin with. Hope that helps.

 

Yes it's marketing. DDR2 costs nothing to make nowadays

Change "can't use it" for "can't use it in order to improve it's gaming performances"

 

Not really marketing IMO... for my daily job i use well over 512Mb, despite my 128bit bus and am very glad i have a 1Gb card even for the odd game i play and future games this year too. I also wished on my gaming 8800GTS 512Mb i had of got the 1Gb version for Mudbox and GTAIV and Stalker. THe marketing isn't claiming a 512Mb is twice as fast a 256Mb version, and 64bit doesn't mean double the speed of 32bit either...

Well as long as performance means FPS, and nothing else. GTAIV, for example needs the extra memory for pixel and vertex shaders, so if you don't have 512Mb+ your performance will be severely limited, in comparison to a 1.5Gb card. (I say 1.5Gb because GTAIV can use well over 1Gb of VRAM).

Having the ability to copy more to RAM, won't mean it copies to RAM faster.
a 32Mb card would be just as quick as a 1Gb card, unless the program needs more than 32MB.... All games these days do, soon they will require more than 512Mb... Xbox360 is likely why that transition is taking longer.