PDA

View Full Version : Is 64MB of graphics memory still good enough?


UptheJunction
10-08-02, 11:18 AM
Just got myself a 64MB GF4 Ti4200, will this be good enough to play games like NOLF2 and mafia at a decent quality?

UtJ

Gator
10-08-02, 11:23 AM
yes i think so, but what are your other system specs?

pelly
10-08-02, 11:30 AM
For the time being and immediate-future.....64MB is good enough....However, with the coming games ( ie: DOOM III,etc....even UT2003 ) you will start to see a noticeable performance drop vs. 128MB cards...

Good luck with your card...have fun fragging...

:D

UptheJunction
10-08-02, 11:34 AM
My other specs are

P3 1GHz
512MB RAM
SB Audigy
40GB HD

Would an upgrade to a P4 be better than getting a 128MB graphics card?

UtJ

Gator
10-08-02, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by UptheJunction
My other specs are

P3 1GHz
512MB RAM
SB Audigy
40GB HD

Would an upgrade to a P4 be better than getting a 128MB graphics card?

UtJ

Yes, an upgrade to P4 or AthlonXP would be better than going from a 64meg TI4200 to a 128meg one.

ragejg
10-08-02, 12:35 PM
For the time being and (maybe) the immediate future, 1ghz still seems to be a sweet spot for [decent] gaming. But newer games are relying heavily on AI as well as the gfx... An example being UT2k3 which has an AI setting for 1.5ghz processors and one for below that class. This may find it's way to other "coming soon" games.

It seems like you have a great card for any system, be it an Athlon 700 OR a P4/2.6.

And... save some dough and get an Athlon XP1600. Then, the money you saved you could couple with your sold value of the 64mb card and you'd have money for your 128mb unit as well.

Surely your present setup works fine.

I tolerate my friends system even running UT2k3demo on a duron 1000/gf2mx64mb/256mbpc133... Gotta drop most eye candy, but 640x480 w/2xAA on a blurry 17" isn't that bad @ 58fps.

pelly
10-08-02, 12:43 PM
but 640x480 w/2xAA on a blurry 17" isn't that bad @ 58fps.

:(

saturnotaku
10-08-02, 12:51 PM
Or you could keep your card and buy an ECS K7S5A and AthlonXP 1600+ for about $110 total and have yourself essentially a brand new system that will give you a noticable performance boost in your games. With that marticular motherboard, you'll still be able to use your single data rate RAM until you can save up for some DDR lovin'. The Ti4200 will scale very nicely with any new system you might purchase, too. :)

Gator
10-08-02, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by saturnotaku
Or you could keep your card and buy an ECS K7S5A and AthlonXP 1600+ for about $110 total and have yourself essentially a brand new system that will give you a noticable performance boost in your games. With that marticular motherboard, you'll still be able to use your single data rate RAM until you can save up for some DDR lovin'. The Ti4200 will scale very nicely with any new system you might purchase, too. :)

I was gonna suggest the same thing. My friend just purchased this combo last week from his PIII, and he saw a HUGE performance boost. He has the same video card as you too and is very happy now. He got it all from http://www.newegg.com

StealthHawk
10-08-02, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by UptheJunction
Just got myself a 64MB GF4 Ti4200, will this be good enough to play games like NOLF2 and mafia at a decent quality?

UtJ

since you said "decent" quality, then the answer is yes.

if you set everything to highest quality and jack up the resolution past 1024, then you probably would want 128MB of video RAM. if that's not your thing, then you most likely don't need it, until say Doom 3. for example, my friend has a gf2mx with 64MB and can run UT2003 with all settings at highest at either 800 or 1024 and still get 30-40fps avg

edit: it was probably more like 25-35 avg :o

thcdru2k
10-08-02, 07:14 PM
since you just bought the 64mb ti4200, unless you can return it, you don't have to go out and buy a 128mb card. you should be able to run most games perfectly unless you want to use 4xfsaa, 8xaf, ultra high textures etc.

Gator
10-09-02, 05:36 AM
StealthHawk, 128mb is not the answer, he can't possibly expect to run at or past 1024x768 with high details without something a lot faster than a PIII 1ghz. The 64meg card should be able to handle it fine, provided the CPU power is there to back it up. I highly recommend at least an AthlonXP1600, or any P4 Northwood minimum.



Originally posted by StealthHawk


since you said "decent" quality, then the answer is yes.

if you set everything to highest quality and jack up the resolution past 1024, then you probably would want 128MB of video RAM. if that's not your thing, then you most likely don't need it, until say Doom 3. for example, my friend has a gf2mx with 64MB and can run UT2003 with all settings at highest at either 800 or 1024 and still get 30-40fps avg

edit: it was probably more like 25-35 avg :o

UptheJunction
10-09-02, 06:09 AM
Great info guys.

However, I thought the main reason for the 128MB was the ability to store hi-res textures? So if I run at 1024x768x32 (my "sweet spot") will the 64MB card mean I cannot use hi-res textures? That would be a bummer.

UtJ

DaveW
10-09-02, 08:09 AM
I read that in Doom 3, 80 meg of textures won't be unusual. So if you have 64 meg there will be more swapping across the AGP bus. Also, if you run in 1024x768x32 with 2X FSAA and double buffering, you use up 12 meg just for frame buffers, or almost 20 meg if you use triple buffering.

The Ti4200 will scale very nicely with any new system you might purchase, too

Doubt it... I don't think the GF4 Ti scales much at all above a 2 ghz CPU. I have run my P4 in 2.4 and 2.7 ghz (a 12% overclock), and my 3D Mark score varied by only about 2%. However if I over clock my Ti4200 by 10%, I get a 10% 3D Mark increase. From that, my dear Watson, I conclude that my GF4 is a bottleneck.

saturnotaku
10-09-02, 09:06 AM
If he had a 1.6 GHz or higher CPU, then no, the video card would probably not scale well. But since he "only" has 1 GHz, with just about any faster CPU he buys, he will see an increase in performance.

Uttar
10-09-02, 09:35 AM
IMO, 128MB Ti4200 video cards doesn't make any sense.

And that's simply because:
4xAA with his res, which takes a lot of memory, is simply too consuming in 90% of games with a Ti4200.

But then you'll say:
"But Doom3 will use up to 80MB of textures!" ( if not more... )

Yeah. With the maximum setting. Which would play at 0.001 FPS on a Ti4200 128MB ( or maybe not, but it wouldn't be playable anyway )


Uttar

DaveW
10-09-02, 11:04 AM
Yeah. With the maximum setting. Which would play at 0.001 FPS on a Ti4200 128MB ( or maybe not, but it wouldn't be playable anyway

The last demo of Doom 3 (v 0.2) at Quakecon was on a 2 ghz P4 and a GF4 Ti 4600, with the detail set to _max_. It reportedly ran faster than the earlier build did running on an ATI 9700 at E3.

There isn't much of a speed different between a Ti4200 and a Ti4600, my Ti 4200 core is overclocked to 4600 speeds and the memory is only 20% slower.

Doom 3 will be very playable on a GF4 Ti, though I suspect having the extra memory of a 128 board will make a noticable difference. The game will probably support texture compression anyway, so you could always enable it or reduce your textures to 16 bit which would only result in a small reduction of visual quality.

And yes, the performance of 4X AA sucks. The only FSAA mode of value (visual improvement / performance cost) on a GF4 Ti is Quincunx. It looks close to 4X AA but with only a 2X AA performance penalty.

Uttar
10-09-02, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by DaveW


The last demo of Doom 3 (v 0.2) at Quakecon was on a 2 ghz P4 and a GF4 Ti 4600, with the detail set to _max_. It reportedly ran faster than the earlier build did running on an ATI 9700 at E3.

There isn't much of a speed different between a Ti4200 and a Ti4600, my Ti 4200 core is overclocked to 4600 speeds and the memory is only 20% slower.


Ok, so now i'm doing an uneducated guess, but didn't Carmack said he did specific optimzation routines according to several cards bottlenecks?

So, isn't it possible MAX on a Ti4600 doesn't look as good as on a R300?

Or anyway, the MAX enabled - i doubt Carmack wouldn't let you configure all graphic detail stuff if you wanted to :)


And yes, an overclocked Ti4200 will be nearly as fast as a Ti4600. But then again, couldn't you also overclock at Ti4600 to have even more? :P

After all, it was reported somewhere nV was able to make one NV25 with 600Mhz core clock using very low yields methods or something. So i doubt the architecture wouldn't allow it, hehe :)


Uttar

StealthHawk
10-09-02, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Gator
StealthHawk, 128mb is not the answer, he can't possibly expect to run at or past 1024x768 with high details without something a lot faster than a PIII 1ghz. The 64meg card should be able to handle it fine, provided the CPU power is there to back it up. I highly recommend at least an AthlonXP1600, or any P4 Northwood minimum.

i realize that, but you'd be surprised at the settings i see people run games at. lots of times i can instantly see that settings are set too high for their systems to adequately handle without chopping up - yet they do it anyway. i still can't figure out if they just can't feel the choppiness or not, or if they just don't care. regardless, that's none of my business whether someone wants to "play" games at unplayable settings.

as an aside, since the guy said his sweet spot is 1024, i doubt the 128MB gf4 4200 would be of any consquence to being able to use high res textures on games anytime soon.

you might say Doom3? but we really don't know enough about Doom 3 and performance.

Bah!
10-11-02, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Uttar


Ok, so now i'm doing an uneducated guess, but didn't Carmack said he did specific optimzation routines according to several cards bottlenecks?

So, isn't it possible MAX on a Ti4600 doesn't look as good as on a R300?

Or anyway, the MAX enabled - i doubt Carmack wouldn't let you configure all graphic detail stuff if you wanted to :)


And yes, an overclocked Ti4200 will be nearly as fast as a Ti4600. But then again, couldn't you also overclock at Ti4600 to have even more? :P

After all, it was reported somewhere nV was able to make one NV25 with 600Mhz core clock using very low yields methods or something. So i doubt the architecture wouldn't allow it, hehe :)


Uttar

Max Settings on a Geforce 4 and a R300 will look exactly the same. There are no special settings being put into Doom 3 that the G4 cant do. Carmack has said this many times, as well as the fact that the Doom 3 engine is being built taking the geforce ONE's feature set into consideration.

Whats really going to matter is your CPU, just like in UT2003.

StealthHawk
10-11-02, 06:16 PM
assuming that the game uses shaders, wouldn't the PS1.4+ supporting hardware look different? after all, PS1.4 has more accuracy than PS1.1/1.3

Carmack's engine has always stressed memory bandwidth, video card, and CPU, so there's no reason why this would change AFAI can see.

i'm still waiting for someone with an R9700Pro to benchmark Tenebrae.

Cotita
10-11-02, 07:04 PM
If you play at 1024x768 then a ti4200 with 64mb is plenty.

Only at resolutions of 1280x1024 and above does 128mb make a real difference and only if you disable texture compression.

Jedi knight 2 for example runs as faster on a ti4200 with 64mb than 128 simply because of the faster memory speeds. If you disable texture compression then 64mb just can't cut it.

There is no visible image quality difference between compressed and non compressed textures. So unless you want to play at resolutions higher than 1024 then a 64mb ti4200 is more than enough.