PDA

View Full Version : 256 Megs needed for NV35?


schuey74
06-23-03, 12:31 PM
Has any one else noticed that performance of the 128 Meg 5900 is well below that of the 256 meg card even when overclocked to the same or similar speeds? The reason I mention this because I see the 128 meg NV35s losing quite a bit of performance to the 256 meg version as the rez starts going up but it seems to early in comparison to the Radeons. Only at 1600x1200 do you begin to see very small advantages to the extra memory on the 256 Meg Radeon 9800 but on the 5900 it varies from game to game & map to map. It only happens when AF/AA are on and it seems to be only in D3D games. Sometimes as low as 1024x768 but most games start taking their big hit at 1280x1024. It looks like Nvidia's drivers are either heavily optimised for the 256 meg cards or their methods of AA/AF use up a hell of a lot more texture memory than ATI's in D3D.

StealthHawk
06-23-03, 04:34 PM
There are other more sinister explanations as well ;)

Skuzzy
06-23-03, 05:12 PM
Now Stealth,..let's dunt go creating potential nasties. LOL!

The ram speeds may be different between the 128 and 256 boards. Lower latency on the 256MB board could account for a speed increase.

Dazz
06-23-03, 05:20 PM
I can only think of 2 games that can use 256MB Ram.

schuey74
06-23-03, 06:30 PM
I'm referring to when they are running at the same or similar speeds and the difference in frames is sometimes 50% - 70%! Splinter Cell & UT2K3 come to mind immediately but there have been other games I've seen in the reviews with simliar results. If you look over 3-4 reviews of 128 meg 5900s you will notice in comparisons against the Ultras they are falling way short, as early as 1024 and definetely by 1280. As opposed to the 9800s that show virtually no difference between the 128 & 256 meg versions until 1600 and even then the differences are small (5%-10%).

Skuzzy
06-23-03, 06:36 PM
I see what you are getting at. The only thing that comes to mind would be poor (maybe the wrong term) memory management.

No texture compression?

StealthHawk
06-23-03, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Now Stealth,..let's dunt go creating potential nasties. LOL!

Hey, that's why I didn't offer up any of my explanations ;)

nrdstrm
06-24-03, 02:17 AM
More and more games will take advantage of 256MB. I'm currently beta testing Star Wars Galaxies, and the question was posed to the developers. Their response was there there are textures in galaxies that are OVER 256MB!!! (They said no system right now can play with graphics at full. They wanted it that way because they want the engine scalable enough to last 4 years...)
Nrdstrm

StealthHawk
06-24-03, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by nrdstrm
More and more games will take advantage of 256MB. I'm currently beta testing Star Wars Galaxies, and the question was posed to the developers. Their response was there there are textures in galaxies that are OVER 256MB!!! (They said no system right now can play with graphics at full. They wanted it that way because they want the engine scalable enough to last 4 years...)
Nrdstrm

Does SWG utilize texture compression?

Dazz
06-24-03, 05:29 PM
UT2003 supports more then 256MB as does this RPG game i saw about where the detail levels are FAR higher then on a 128MB board.

ricercar
06-24-03, 06:17 PM
The Gas Station demo that ships with FX 5900 should be a good test of video memory performance. Textures in the NV35 Gas Station demo were well over 300 MB during development, and they dropped to only ~240 MB for the shipping version of the demo.

schuey74
06-24-03, 06:44 PM
The amount of video memory used has to do with a lot more than just the textures in the game. Resolution, AA, & AF all have a lot to do with it. Technically, even Q3 engine based games could use more than 128 megs if you ran them at a super high rez with AF & AA that we just don't have available today.

Running a game at 1600x1200 uses about five times more video memory than at 640x480. This is why anyone trying to play UT2K3 on a 32 meg video card is going to have problems if they pump the details too high or try anything higher than 800x600. UT2K3 uses up to 160 megs for textures when you reach 1600x1200 and pump the details way up.

The amount of pixels being drawn on your screen is directly related to how much video memory is used. Multiply the horizontal rez by the vertical rez and you have the amount of pixels on screen. This way you can get a general idea of how high up you can push it before you start using your system's memory.

GlowStick
06-24-03, 07:13 PM
Utoh, this thread is makeing me want a 256mb card,

dam you dam you all!

J/K hehe