PDA

View Full Version : Video Ram- how does it affect performance?


johnjohnbongo
03-17-04, 08:11 AM
Hi - this is my 1st post, and i hope u guys can help me:

I can get a brand new Ti4600 with 64mh ram from a local shop for only £43 ($69) and I can't find anywhere online to compare this card with others.

The Ti4600 128mb is a great card and would be more than enough for my uses, but is priced much higher.

So what I'm wondering is how much is this lack of 64mb going to affect my performance? Is it really going to be the bottleneck that I'm worried about?

any help would be much appreciated :afro:


jjbongo

zoomy942
03-17-04, 08:15 AM
first... welcome.

it all depends on what resolution you play games at. but before that... you shouldnt pay $69 for a 64 meg card. you can get a 128 meg card for cheaper than that. you will hear lots of opinions ni here but i'll jump first. save your money an dget a 9600 of some sort or a 5700 of some sort.

saturnotaku
03-17-04, 08:15 AM
For most games that are out now, 64 mb will be sufficient. But 128 mb will help you out a lot more in games like UT2004, Far Cry, Painkiller and eventually Doom 3 and Half-Life 2. Those games will still run with the card you have, but the experience will be much better with 128 or 256 mb or video memory (just don't buy a GeForce FX 5200 or 5700 w/256 mb of memory, that amount of vram is best savored on a top-end card).

If you can return the card you bought and save up a few more pounds, you'll be able to get a 128 mb GeForce FX 5700 non-ultra and overclock the living daylights out of it. Or keep saving and pick up a GeForce FX 5900/XT/SE and you'll really see some excellent performance.

MUYA
03-17-04, 08:20 AM
What the satman said...however to give u an example...head on over to hothardware. they have a 256MB Radeon 9800 Pro review in which they compared screen shots of a 128MB radeon 9800 Pro and 256 MB radeon 9800 Pro. U can see the difference in Evolva.

particleman
03-17-04, 09:28 AM
Was a 64MB Ti4600 ever made? I thought it was only the GF4 Ti4200's that were made with 64MB.

johnjohnbongo
03-17-04, 09:30 AM
Thanks guys for ur help,
i've looked around and i was looking at a huge comparison benchmark on Tom's Hardware Guide, and it seemed to show that overall the ti4600 came out on top of the r9600 and the fx5700, but in the higher quality games it lost out a bit more.

and i imagine the 4600 tests were with a 128mb version, so I'm still unsure of the implications of having a 64mb instead.

I'm still unsure what to do, as I'm trying to save money here and i thought 43 quid was dirt cheap, but i might bid on ebay in a second for a r9600 at £48.

i need 2 cards for 2 machines anyway so i might get 2 different 1s for a laugh!

edit- yeah i thought the 64mb ver was strange and its a pain coz i cant find anywhere to compare it with!

walkndude
03-17-04, 10:59 AM
Listen to particleman, 4600's are 128mb boards...

I would go with 128mb for the simple fact that the 4600 is quite capable of 2x AA in many game titles. A 64 meg card is going to hurt performance quite a bit under those circumstances as texture thrashing causes nasty hitches/stuttering during gameplay.

theultimo
03-17-04, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by walkndude
Listen to particleman, 4600's are 128mb boards...

I would go with 128mb for the simple fact that the 4600 is quite capable of 2x AA in many game titles. A 64 meg card is going to hurt performance quite a bit under those circumstances as texture thrashing causes nasty hitches/stuttering during gameplay.

Not to mention that the 4600 is STILL A FAST CARD in DX 8 apps :D

saturnotaku
03-17-04, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by theultimo
Not to mention that the 4600 is STILL A FAST CARD in DX 8 apps :D

Long as you're not using AF in Direct3D, the GF4 Ti is still a plenty good card for the time being. Better in many cases than the FX5200 and 5600.

johnjohnbongo
03-17-04, 03:06 PM
Thanks all of you for your help but i think i've got my 2 card purchases sorted now-

I got a Radeon 9600 for £55

and a Radeon 9500 Pro for £70

According to many benchmarks that I have seen these cards should give me just what I need.

And anyone who doubts the existence of the Ti4600 64mb can come and see me and my local comp shop! (I know the card doesn't seem to exist anywhere else!) :D

Cheers again guys!

MikeC
03-17-04, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by johnjohnbongo
So what I'm wondering is how much is this lack of 64mb going to affect my performance?

While this does not affect performance per se, 64MB will limit the number of antialiasing modes that can be used. I put together a table that shows the memory requirements for AA on the GeForce4 Ti 4200. It's close to the beginning of the review.

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/geforce4_ti_4200/index.shtml

It's probably not a big issue since you can use 4X AA up to 1280x1024 and 2X AA up to 1600x1200 in 32-bit color with 64MB.

Another factor in your decision should be the CPU that will be powering the graphics card. There's no point in paying extra for a graphics card if the CPU can't keep it fully utilized. On the other hand, if you are planning a CPU upgrade in the near future, then that might not be an issue.

Then again, by the time you upgrade the CPU, there will be better graphics cards available at lower prices :)

Nutty
03-18-04, 03:33 AM
Continuing from Mike's post, if you use AA at these kind of resolutions, you're going to find it eating up virtually _all_ your VRAM just for the frame-buffers, which means textures are going to continually paged across the AGP bus from system RAM. Not good for performance.

I'd get a 128MB card minimum these days, regardless of which card it is.

goofjb
03-18-04, 08:11 PM
I agree that 128mb is the way to go. As far as the price goes I think you have to remember that prices in the UK are more. At least I think so. Someone can clearify that for me. You could try and get a 9500 non-pro and do the trick to make it a 9700. But you have to have the correct kind 9500.