PDA

View Full Version : 7800GTX 512Mb + 1Gb RAM or GTX 256MB + 2GB RAM?


Idoru
11-09-05, 12:30 PM
A question which I'm sure has crossed at least a few other people's minds... These combinations will work out about the same price (guesstimating the 512MB GTX at 500, and already have 1Gb RAM)... so for someone who wants to play FEAR stutter free, but who doesn't play that many games (HL2, probably Quake 4, don't have the time sadly for much else), which is the best 'bang for buck' combo? And (not strictly a GPU question) how much real world difference between 3-3-3-8 and 2-3-3-6 latencies (both Corsair XMS) in terms of (a) gaming and (b) general system performance? Thanks as always for any input.

jAkUp
11-09-05, 12:36 PM
Easy choice.

Go with the 512MB Video card.

Those games you listed do not need 2GB of ram, they need a 512MB card. BF2 only uses around 700MB of system ram with a 512MB card.

400MHz DDR vs. 1.8GHz DDR3.

Easy choice ;)

Idoru
11-09-05, 12:38 PM
As I thought! ;) Cheers.

Kojiro
11-09-05, 01:07 PM
2x 7800 GT 512MB in SLI + 4GB ram = Ownage :D

And very poor :(

Just to play Quake 4 (Doom 3.5), COD2 (Yet another war sim), FEAR (Yet another FPS game). :rolleyes:

I'll gladly stick with my 6800GT and 1GB of ram. :cool:

DRen72
11-09-05, 02:07 PM
...how much real world difference between 3-3-3-8 and 2-3-3-6 latencies (both Corsair XMS) in terms of (a) gaming and (b) general system performance?

I'd like to add that from personal experience, in real world gaming and general system performance, the differences in these two memory timings will be hard if not impossible to see except in benchmarks. The main thing (if you have an AMD-64) is the command rate. A setting of 1T is better than 2T.

CaptNKILL
11-09-05, 02:41 PM
I dont know... my peak memory usage after a long BF2 session was in the 1.4Gb range :o

Idoru
11-09-05, 02:55 PM
I dont know... my peak memory usage after a long BF2 session was in the 1.4Gb range :o

Some have reported as high as 1.7GB...

PaiN
11-09-05, 03:04 PM
I'd like to add that from personal experience, in real world gaming and general system performance, the differences in these two memory timings will be hard if not impossible to see except in benchmarks.

my "personal" experiance is just the opposite....2gb vs 1gb during benching shows no difference at all, but for real world gaming 2gb has definately made things smoother, many gamers report studdering and issues like that in certain games and with 2gb I've never seen it...

BrianG
11-09-05, 03:07 PM
my "personal" experiance is just the opposite....2gb vs 1gb during benching shows no difference at all, but for real world gaming 2gb has definately made things smoother, many gamers report studdering and issues like that in certain games and with 2gb I've never seen it...
The memory gap hitches tend not to affect the fps test in many games as they are system-wide drops. It is is like missed time.

Idoru
11-14-05, 09:32 AM
Given the benchmark results from various sites today which show that the extra 256MB of onboard GPU RAM seems to be playing no part in the extra performance of the GTX 512MB (done by downclocking the GTX 512MB memory to GTX 256Mb speeds), it seems pertinant to ask this question again.... particularly regarding hitching in FEAR and BF2. What's the 'real world' situation?

SH64
11-14-05, 09:52 AM
512MB VRAM .. however if you can afford a 512MB card then you can afford 2GB RAM aswell hehe ;)

Redshirt #24
11-14-05, 09:59 AM
512MB VRAM .. however if you can afford a 512MB card then you can afford 2GB RAM aswell hehe ;)
QFT, though it might take another paycheck to deal with the extra gig. :)

nemecb
11-14-05, 12:11 PM
my "personal" experiance is just the opposite....2gb vs 1gb during benching shows no difference at all, but for real world gaming 2gb has definately made things smoother, many gamers report studdering and issues like that in certain games and with 2gb I've never seen it...
He was referring to the memory timings, not the 1 vs. 2 gig question. The main benefit of low memory timings is that they can be relaxed for overclocking, but even in benchmarks lower latency doesn't make a huge difference on its own.

Idoru
11-14-05, 02:31 PM
He was referring to the memory timings, not the 1 vs. 2 gig question. The main benefit of low memory timings is that they can be relaxed for overclocking, but even in benchmarks lower latency doesn't make a huge difference on its own.

I don't think he was...

Here is the 512MB v 256Mb link, for what it's worth:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2607&p=10

nemecb
11-14-05, 04:10 PM
I'd like to add that from personal experience, in real world gaming and general system performance, the differences in these two memory timings will be hard if not impossible to see except in benchmarks. The main thing (if you have an AMD-64) is the command rate. A setting of 1T is better than 2T.
This is the post I'm talking about. He is very definitely talking about timings, as he says right in it. This is also the post that was quoted in the post I previously quoted (still following me?:)), thus my response. Not really a big deal though since there doesn't seem to be any disagreement, just two different topics.