Is video card with 1 gig or 2 gig better than card like 1.5 gig or 1.25 gig like GTX 480?

vbimport

#1

I see the GTX 285 cards with 1 gig even or 2 gig even and then I see cards like the GTX 470 and 480 with 1.25gig and 1.5 gig and wonder if memory that is even like 512, 1024, 2048 is a better product or if the 1.25 or 1.5 gig is ok even if they are not even in memory on the board.

Thank you


#2

Getting more than 1Gb isn’t need as the GPU can’t render that large textures in usable performance anyway. Just FYI a Radeon 5850 is faster and cheaper than a GTX 285 and 285 isn’t DX11.
//Danne


#3

[QUOTE=DiiZzY;2512986]Getting more than 1Gb isn’t need as the GPU can’t render that large textures in usable performance anyway. Just FYI a Radeon 5850 is faster and cheaper than a GTX 285 and 285 isn’t DX11.
//Danne[/QUOTE]

Again where going away from the topic at hand and comparing Apples to Oranges again. Comparison should be of equal equipment and comparing something new to something old doesn’t do either product any service. Being cheaper does come with a hit as well so price does matter want performance you will have to spend more.


#4

That memory will depend is it DDR2 or DDR3 or something newer that the GPU takes more advantages and less bottle neck. Also what type of thread and pipe lines the GPU have I think will have a affect on performance and rendering. But memory by itself isn’t the only thing to consider what type of memory that is would be more something one would consider. But having more couldn’t hurt boost performance but if it is more memory and DDR3 or higher that boost GPU performance and rendering.


#5

[QUOTE=DiiZzY;2512986]Getting more than 1Gb isn’t need as the GPU can’t render that large textures in usable performance anyway. Just FYI a Radeon 5850 is faster and cheaper than a GTX 285 and 285 isn’t DX11.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this. The only reason to buy a GTX 285 at this point is if you’re going to use the GPU acceleration feature of the forthcoming Adobe Premiere Pro CS5. That program’s GPU acceleration feature supports only a limited number of NVIDIA GPUs (initially, the GeForce GTX 285, the Quadro FX 3800, 4800, 5800 and Quadro CX - in which case the GTX 285 is the least expensive of those). All other NVIDIA GPUs and all ATi/AMD GPUs must resort to the software version of the Mercury Playback Engine (at least on initial shipments), which does not use the GPU but uses the CPU instead.


#6

[QUOTE=coolcolors;2513000]Again where going away from the topic at hand and comparing Apples to Oranges again. Comparison should be of equal equipment and comparing something new to something old doesn’t do either product any service. Being cheaper does come with a hit as well so price does matter want performance you will have to spend more.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=coolcolors;2513003]That memory will depend is it DDR2 or DDR3 or something newer that the GPU takes more advantages and less bottle neck. Also what type of thread and pipe lines the GPU have I think will have a affect on performance and rendering. But memory by itself isn’t the only thing to consider what type of memory that is would be more something one would consider. But having more couldn’t hurt boost performance but if it is more memory and DDR3 or higher that boost GPU performance and rendering.[/QUOTE]

Again, I agree that the comparison is between apples and oranges. The high-end GeForce GTX 2xx series GPUs, being older designs, still use GDDR3 memory while the newer Radeon HD 5xxx series at the upper end use GDDR5 memory.

Of course, price does not always matter. Just being astronomically expensive does not guarantee good performance. In fact, the most expensive GPU can actually be slower than an upper-midrange GPU for everyday applications.

And the HD 5xxx series are (abnormally) slow at 2D apps, such as Windows itself and 2D productivity apps, because of a bug in most of the existing driver versions for that series of GPUs. Until AMD officially patches this, I would not recommend any of that series of GPUs for all-around use.


#7

Thank you for reply

If you have 256 meg, then 512 meg, then 1 gig then 2 gig, they are all even 2x multiples of memory.

Is that more efficient than an odd number like 768 meg or 896 meg etc?

Thank you for helping


#8

[QUOTE=SubZero;2513020]Thank you for reply

If you have 256 meg, then 512 meg, then 1 gig then 2 gig, they are all even 2x multiples of memory.

Is that more efficient than an odd number like 768 meg or 896 meg etc?

Thank you for helping[/QUOTE]

It depends on the memory bus that the GPU is using. The high-end NVIDIA GTX 2xx cards use a 448-bit memory bus; thus, 896MB is an even multiple of 448-bit. (Similarly, the GTX 470 and 480 use 320- and 384-bit GDDR5 memory interfaces, respectively, and are thus typically outfitted with 1280 and 1536 MB of memory.) Cards which have 1GB of RAM typically use a 128- or 256-bit memory bus (although the GTX 285 with its 1GB of memory uses a 512-bit GDDR3 memory interface).


#9

Thank you for reply

I think I see now. If you have 512 bit membus the 1 gig or 2 gig is efficient fit, is it correct? Must be multiples to be most efficient?


#10

Subzero don’t be concerned with the memory system of the video card, it all boils down to how the card performs. Read reviews from reputable sites, they will compare it other cards. Check out this one on the GTX 480 at hardwareheaven


#11

[QUOTE=SubZero;2513025]Thank you for reply

I think I see now. If you have 512 bit membus the 1 gig or 2 gig is efficient fit, is it correct? Must be multiples to be most efficient?[/QUOTE]

Or proper for that membus. Different membus bit counts result in different sets of even multiples. After all, since memory sizes must be in a power of 2 relative to the bit width of a membus, 896MB of RAM on a 256-bit membus is impossible. Similarly, you can’t have exactly 1GB of RAM on a 320-bit membus.

At any rate, it all boils down to the overall performance of the graphics card itself (as a whole).


#12

…and more RAM doesn’t translate better performance all the time
//Danne


#13

Thank you for all of the replies. I have lots of good information now.

Thank you for helping


#14

[QUOTE=DiiZzY;2513057]…and more RAM doesn’t translate better performance all the time
//Danne[/QUOTE]But it’s an excellent marketing figure :bigsmile:
Very nice: a Geforce 6200 (64 bit memory interface) with whopping 512MB VRAM :wink:

Michael


#15

I would thank you again for helping me to understand that the multiple is important, not a specific number. 480 doubled is as effective as 512 multiple if paired with same bit channel for memory.