mong_2
07-19-2000, 04:07 AM
why go 64 meg when 32 is just fine
why why why
why why why
| //flex table opened by JP
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : why go 64 meg when 32 is just fine mong_2 07-19-2000, 04:07 AM why go 64 meg when 32 is just fine why why why smartxtai 07-19-2000, 07:10 AM Althought we prolly don't ues the full 64 mb of ram, a 64 MB Hercules Prophet II is actually almost 30% faster than a 32 MB Prophet II. The whole performance of the graphics card actually goes up even though 64 MB of ram seems like a wasste. Dputiger 07-19-2000, 07:11 AM Actually, it's not the amount of memory that matters quite so much as the bandwidth. Tomshardware has looked at this issue quite a bit recently. mad hampster 07-19-2000, 09:08 AM I gotta agree with mong, it seems kinda silly. I saw several benchmarks that showed that the only time the 64 meg is faster is in high res-32 bit color but not by much, not really worth an extra $100 IMHO alpha 07-19-2000, 11:10 AM Why have a PIII733 when UT will run on a PIII500 just fine?? Because when UT's sequel (for example) comes out, and you still want decent performance, you won't have to change your graphics card. Plus, every little helps http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif Brian48 07-19-2000, 11:22 AM Actually, the extra memory does come in handy when playing levels with extremely heavy textures and with games that don't use memory efficiently (ie. D3D in UT). I picked a 64mb Prophet II when it first came out. It was offered to me at cost and the price was actually cheaper than the 32mb version so buying it was a no-brainer. I would say 95% of the time, you won't miss the extra memory. Running my own tests, Q3 timedemos using the "Quaver" benchmarks was significantly better with my GTS2 compared to a buddy's 32mb Elsa Gladiac. I get absolutely no slow downs what so ever playing the "Hero's Keep" level in Q3A with the texture slider all the way to the right and at 1024x768x32 w/hi-sound. Still, I wouldn't have spent the $100 extra either if I didn't had to. mad hampster 07-19-2000, 04:46 PM alpha, there is a BIG difference in 200mhz on a proccessor, on the GTS there is virtually no difference in 64 or 32 mb or ram. They could dump 128mb and it still wouldnt help alot, because of the massive bandwith problem. Dputiger 07-19-2000, 09:13 PM Unless your running Quake III in 1600x1200 you'll never miss the extra RAM. BadBen 07-20-2000, 09:18 AM In Canada (well a EBworld local store in Ottawa) a 32mg GF2 GST cost 539.99$CDN and the 64mg 549.99$CDN. For 10 dolard more I think would go for the 64mg because he better performance in High Resolution and 32bpp color. mad hampster 07-20-2000, 03:37 PM Maybe, but paying an extra $100 on an already expensive card is a bit rich for my blood. Dputiger 07-20-2000, 04:45 PM I say just buy what you can afford. I'm not real thrilled about buying modern video cards until they fix that bandwidth problem--but God knows when that will be. neo_otyugh 07-20-2000, 07:53 PM ummm....as if paying $300 for a vid is not a little steep anyway...? alpha 07-21-2000, 01:25 AM I still say that the 32mb extra will make a lota difference, 'specialy in future games, when texture detail improves a lot. Also, the consumer having lotza texture memory will allow game designers to use more varied textures in stuff. Wilan Wong 07-22-2000, 05:50 AM Why go for extra memory, when there is a memory bandwidth problem?? AuraEdge 07-23-2000, 09:20 PM The decision was easy for me - I'm still not a believer of 32 bit color, and at 16 bit at just about any resolution, extra RAM wont make a difference. I did treat myself to a little bit of OGL FSAA since I got my GTS tho http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif. mad hampster 07-23-2000, 10:10 PM What programs do you run FSAA in? I tried it in Half-life and didnt see any noticeable changes Ultima 07-24-2000, 05:32 AM It seems a bit outdated I know, but with tnt2's I didn't see any difference. At work we have the v3800 both in 32Mb and 16Mb, both I have tested with 3DMark2000. I don't remember the exact scores, but they were practically the same. Pim Warthog 07-28-2000, 09:49 PM I fully agree with Alpha. I always look towards the FUTURE when buying computer hardware. I'm not a fan of having my hardware not be good enough after a year or so. Theoretically, a 64mb card will still be really good for a long time. Sure, it won't be the best, but it will still play the latest games for a time. Think about it: my last comp (just sold it) had a 4mb video card - it did just fine. My new comp will have a 64mb Geforce2. My computer card will have the same amount of video memory that basic computers have in system memory! yikes! But I won't NEED to upgrade for a long, long time. Warthog falcompsx 07-29-2000, 01:41 AM *general* rule in computers...buy as much as you can afford... SysOpt.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. |