128 vs 256, worth the extra $100?

Hey guys. Well looking at what video card I want, Im pretty sure Im gonna go ATI Radeon 9800 Pro. Then theres the question of which one, the 128 or 256 meg version.

This topic was started by ,


data/avatar/default/avatar01.webp

15 Posts
Location -
Joined 2003-06-28
Hey guys. Well looking at what video card I want, Im pretty sure Im gonna go ATI Radeon 9800 Pro. Then theres the question of which one, the 128 or 256 meg version. I honestly dont see huge performance leaps on the 256 from information ive seen. Anyone have more info on the subject? Seems like 256 is more for bragging rights than actual performance. I mean yeah, its gonna kick arse, but $100 more for what seems to be minimal performance boost seems cruddy.

Participate on our website and join the conversation

You have already an account on our website? Use the link below to login.
Login
Create a new user account. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds.
Register
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.

Responses to this topic


data/avatar/default/avatar01.webp

99 Posts
Location -
Joined 2002-08-15
Well what it really comes down to is how long you're gonna stay with
card.
You are correct that there is not much of a difference in the tests,
and it is still 100 bucks more. But what I do when i buy a video
card is stay with it for a period of 1-3 years. So if you ask me, i would
buy the 256mb version, so when max payne 2 comes out, half life 2, doom 3, deus ex 2, and what not, you'll still be fine.

Then again, if you will upgrade again soon (which i would find a stupid idea, cuz i mean, why keep upgrading your whole life man!) then go for the 128mb version.

Hope that helped out a bit

Laterzz

Yngwie II

data/avatar/default/avatar01.webp

51 Posts
Location -
Joined 2003-01-14
I go with YngwieII.

Games keep getting better and bigger! Also we endusers get more demanding on imagequality. This requires more and more memory for storing textures and stuff. When videomemory gets full system memory is used (or even disk in worse case scenarios). System memory is cheaper then videomemory but videomemory is faster and has a much higher memorybandwidth (even with todays AGP 8x for system memory bandwidth). So textures and stuff are better stored in videomemory then in system memory. You can't just upgrade your videomemory so you better be sure to buy a videocard with enough memory.

When you are a demanding gameplayer and you want to get the most out of your card over its lifespan then I highly recommend the 256 MB card. Certainly now DoomIII and stuff are hitting the markets soon!!!

data/avatar/default/avatar03.webp

50 Posts
Location -
Joined 2003-01-14
No current game uses more than 64mb for textures. Doom 3 and HL 2 will use 128mb at max. 256MB is a waste for current and upcoming games for next year. 256MB is good for CAD and 3D studio max stuff etc. Surely useless for actual games.

data/avatar/default/avatar03.webp

79 Posts
Location -
Joined 2003-06-09
agreed with above, you have your choice in:

budget (do i have the dough for it?)
usage (am i really gonna use this much power?)
upgrades (do i want something that will last me long?)

basically if you have the money to dish out go for 256, even though you wont be using it for a long time, the MBs extra only helps in FSAA (max resolutions/playing games maxed out) other than that there isnt really much of a difference

or you can keep yourself 100$ and still have one of the best performing cards of the future

also when 256mb type games come out, there will be higher-end cards that will come out that will be even faster, so really 256 as Zorro said are only good for texturing/imaging/modeling programs

other than that 128 (save cash? :roll: ) 256 (all to brag )

data/avatar/default/avatar02.webp

500 Posts
Location -
Joined 2002-02-09
if it was me .. i would go for 128 Mb ram Card and get some nice $ 100 upgrade for my *sweet* Rig .

data/avatar/default/avatar04.webp

44 Posts
Location -
Joined 2002-08-12
The 256MB version is too expensive for nearly no improvements
The 256Mb version uses DDR-2 memory and this memory gets really hot - for OC-experiments additional cooling might be required

data/avatar/default/avatar01.webp

51 Posts
Location -
Joined 2003-01-14
No current game uses more than 64mb for textures. Doom 3 and HL 2 will use 128mb at max. 256MB is a waste for current and upcoming games for next year. 256MB is good for CAD and 3D studio max stuff etc. Surely useless for actual games.


The amount of memory textures take up varies massively, depending on how many textures are actually needed at once, and what resolution they are, and what colour depth they are (they don't have to have the same bit depth as the final display), and whether they're compressed or not in the card's memory. Features such as environment maps, light maps, bump maps, and detail textures can all raise memory requirements significantly. With games becoming more life-like, pumping more polygons and using richer textures which all need to be stored in memory, there definitely is a need for a lot of video memory.

(Nice cut and paste job isn't it? (Several articles combined))

In other words the the amount of memory used by basic textures might be 64/128 MB but all detail and quality settings you enable have to be applied over the 64/128 MB textures and require a lot of memory also.

But to be honest... I think a 128Mb card will do the job fine also! :)

data/avatar/default/avatar03.webp

1 Posts
Location -
Joined 2003-07-07
Saving the 100 bucks for future computer upgrades will be a better option IMHO.

data/avatar/default/avatar04.webp

516 Posts
Location -
Joined 2002-06-25
NO Game is gonna USe it so NO, it is a SALES pitch !! Do NOT get a 256MB :|

data/avatar/default/avatar01.webp

614 Posts
Location -
Joined 2003-03-21
Dont get 256Mb, games already have trouble using 128Mb :P