graphics memory

Redbull{wings}

Redbull{wings}

Active Member
is there a large difference in gddr3 and gddr2 for instance would a 512mb gddr2 card be the same or better than a 256mb gddr3 card?(memory wise excluding clocks and such)
 
Thats a tough choice... honestly I'd have to see the cards to make a choice. The performance jump from GDDR2 to GDDR3 isn't as big as from GDDR1 to GDDR2 though.
 
GDDR3 is a newer and presumably faster onboard memory for video cards. For most games you can away with a card with 128mb while a 256mb will see some boost in performance depending on make and model. I considered a 512mb for a new build but backed off that idea with a 256mb model. The main usage for the card has to be a consideration. Some will recommend going with the GDDR3 line of cards rather then running any 512mb model for OCing and gaming as a rule. You might see a gain when running multimedia over gaming with a GDDR2 512mb however.

When looking over those two models I couldn't help taking a look at http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814127217 MSI's GDDR3 model seen there.
 
Last edited:
Get the 256 mb 7600GT because:

1. The 7600GT is more powerfull than the 7600GS
2. Neither of those GPUs will utilize 512 mb or GRAM
3. GDDR3 is faster
 
PC eye said:
GDDR3 is a newer and presumably faster onboard memory for video cards. For most games you can away with a card with 128mb while a 256mb will see some boost in performance depending on make and model. I considered a 512mb for a new build but backed off that idea with a 256mb model. The main usage for the card has to be a consideration. Some will recommend going with the GDDR3 line of cards rather then running any 512mb model for OCing and gaming as a rule. You might see a gain when running multimedia over gaming with a GDDR2 512mb however.

When looking over those two models I couldn't help taking a look at http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814127217 MSI's GDDR3 model seen there.
Click to expand...

thanks for your feedback i looked at that card but it is kind of getting a bit high in my budget range...but im definetly looking into a 7600gt i just noticed the 512mb and thought it may be a better choice
 
I can't that the memory difference will see a real gain in performance in gaming over a 256mb GDDR3 card. When going from an MSI NVidia 128mb AGP model to an ATI 256mb card then on a Socket A board there wasn't a great deal to either rave or complain about. But that was basically the same type off of memory seen there.

The ATI GDDR2 model seen at the link here has worked out good for the new build that wasn't scheduled until 2007. The old board decided to say "good bye" a little early leaving a need to rush into a lower priced built then being planned. The X1300 Pro was the card selected for the quick build.
 
It depends what games you are playing. There are only two games at the moment that I know of that can take advantage of 512MB of texture memory. Doom 3 and Quake 4 on the highest possible graphics settings. Other than that you can get along fine with 256.
 
I've seen some good reviews lately where the MSI models outperform NVidia cards. I imagine they get an edge over others as well. I've also been seeing a few downsides on XFX cards. I think I'll stay with the MSI line as far as brands along with 256mb models.
 
I have a 7600GT with 256M RAM, and it'll play Doom3 on ultra settings with 2xAA no problem. I seriously doubt having 512M will make any difference. As 34erd said, they just can't utilize 512M of RAM...
 
Well that difference in video memory has more to do with the application of the card itself over games geared to run normal on 64mb(older games mainly) or 128mb cards in general. You gain a slight improvement at times with a 256mb card. But that gaing can only go so far do to any game's own design.
 
They can utilize it. It depends on the size of the textures in the game. Most games don't use textures that large, but Doom 3 and Quake 4 can (both use the same engine).

To be honest with you though, 2x FSAA is nothing to write home about. Try it at 4x or 8x... The minimum I use with my card is 4x and it is a little outdated unfortunately :( Asus AX800 Pro.
 
In many games you will see settings other then antiscopic and antiliasing for selecting the texture and image quality levels there. The PCI-E offers support for 16x while that won't always be seen. The game designs usually surround the types of cards available at the time of release. Another thing to look at is the type of game.

3D Realms, Raven, Activision, and others often see the lower texture levels while the newer games using Source Have the more high end look due to higher textures there. System memory as well as graphics memory will play a role there.
 
In many games you will see settings other then antiscopic and antiliasing for selecting the texture and image quality levels there.
Click to expand...
It's anisotropic and anti-aliasing, and PCI-E has nothing to do with the number of filtering passes you can make.

3D Realms, Raven, Activision, and others often see the lower texture levels while the newer games using Source Have the more high end look due to higher textures there. System memory as well as graphics memory will play a role there.
Click to expand...
What does the game producer have to do with texture quality?
 
Most of the cards out will readily handle the games on the market. Some brands simply offer a much better card for high ending and OCing along with better support for texture qualities.
 
I've been staying with ATI cards while going with NVidia chipsets on boards. EGADS! I'm going to have to buy another board to use Crossfire! :eek: ! I don't think adding a second MSI Radeon X1300 Pro will work on the SLI board here not that I have any real intention of running a dual card setup. But a look over at boards with ATI chips is something for the next build.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top