Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Fx5900 128mb or 256mb?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 31, 2004 12:27:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

I am about to buy a Fx5900 card but am wary about buying 128mb card as
latest games creeping towards 128mb as recommended minimum.

What do folks reckon will be minimum graphics card memory to run newest
games in 12 months.

More about : fx5900 128mb 256mb

Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 31, 2004 12:27:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

I don't know if there is a 256MB 5900 but it sounds like a waste of memory.
I'm very happy with my 128MB 5900 flashed to a 5950 Ultra.

tinklemagoo wrote:
> I am about to buy a Fx5900 card but am wary about buying 128mb card as
> latest games creeping towards 128mb as recommended minimum.
>
> What do folks reckon will be minimum graphics card memory to run
> newest games in 12 months.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 31, 2004 12:27:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"tinklemagoo" <tinklemagoo@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<ORjac.6333$1h7.39990@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> I am about to buy a Fx5900 card but am wary about buying 128mb card as
> latest games creeping towards 128mb as recommended minimum.
>
> What do folks reckon will be minimum graphics card memory to run newest
> games in 12 months.

256Mb is slowly becoming usefull.. as games use more complex
textures... and more detailed models! But.. only the TOP cards
actually have a real use for 256Mb.

Some shops sell FX5200 non Ultra's with 256Mb for instance... as
everybody knows.. those GPU's so pisspoor weak .. that no game ever
actually can use the extra 128Mb.

So unless it's a fast performing card... 256Mb is not much usefull! I
would say that 128Mb is sufficient... for now... and probably for the
coming year.. after that. Well, then we might have more reason for
256Mb!
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 31, 2004 7:39:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Every couple of years the same questions got asked:

8 MB or 12 MB? (Voodoo2 era)
32 MB or 64 MB? (Geforce2 GTS era)
64 MB or 128 MB? (Geforce3 Ti era)
128 MB or 256 MB?

In all cases, the extra memory immediately made zero performance
improvements. Eventually more and more video cards will be equipped with 256
MB as standard equipment, because some market ANALyst ran some surveys
saying that users want 256 MB. 128 MB is good enough for now. You can run
1600x1200x32 with 4xFSAA and still have more than 64 MB left for textures.

--
First of One
Formula SAE Racing:
http://fsae.utoronto.ca/


"tinklemagoo" <tinklemagoo@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:o Rjac.6333$1h7.39990@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> I am about to buy a Fx5900 card but am wary about buying 128mb card as
> latest games creeping towards 128mb as recommended minimum.
>
> What do folks reckon will be minimum graphics card memory to run newest
> games in 12 months.
>
>
April 1, 2004 5:54:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

First of One wrote:

> Every couple of years the same questions got asked:
>
> 8 MB or 12 MB? (Voodoo2 era)
> 32 MB or 64 MB? (Geforce2 GTS era)
> 64 MB or 128 MB? (Geforce3 Ti era)
> 128 MB or 256 MB?
>
> In all cases, the extra memory immediately made zero performance
> improvements. Eventually more and more video cards will be equipped
> with 256 MB as standard equipment, because some market ANALyst ran
> some surveys saying that users want 256 MB. 128 MB is good enough for
> now. You can run 1600x1200x32 with 4xFSAA and still have more than 64
> MB left for textures.




Considering that most games are utilizing system memory and paging
files more than video card memory, I'd go with what you can afford.


When AGP3.0 8X cards came out every motherboard manufacturer was
rushing to put out their latest board with AGP 3.0 support.


The truth is, most graphics cards aren't doing the job they could be
doing.


3D animation at an industry production level, such as Industrial Light
and Magic (LucasArts), Pixar, Dreamworks, and SquareSoft is all
produced using a collection of slower systems WITHOUT video cards.

Most rendering at that level is entirely done by the processor, as it
has no need to be displayed on a screen.

Even the Geforce FX 5200 and Radeon 9200 can put out 20 Gigaflops/sec,
whereas the fastest Pentium 4 can pump out nearly a quarter.



No graphical engine, whether it be the Unreal, Quake, Halflife, GeoMod,
etc caches textures entirely into video memory.

And this isn't because they don't have the memory capacity, but simply
because the AGP bus is not being utilized to it's full capability to
deliver the textures fast enough.

Even if developers let the textures sit in system memory cached for the
video memory, it would speed it up, opposed to pulling everything from
the hard drive upon request.




So, go with what you can afford.


Research memory latency as well. If you buy a Geforce FX 5900SE/XT,
it'll have higher memory latency that the 5900 Ultra or standard.


Memory latency plays a large role in overclockability.


With all of the different model numbers out there, ATI and NVIDIA have
made it nearly impossible to buy a decent card.


Just research them, because price doesn't necessarily always yield
performance, as the guys that have flashed their 5900 bios to a 5950
Ultra and achieved better performance have proved.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 1, 2004 4:14:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 03:39:07 GMT "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> meeped :

>Every couple of years the same questions got asked:


Increase in memory has been pretty much gone hand in hand with the (quite
staggering) drop in memory cost.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 1, 2004 5:30:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>From: "teqguy" teqguy@techie.com

>Research memory latency as well. If you buy a Geforce FX 5900SE/XT,
>it'll have higher memory latency that the 5900 Ultra or standard.
>
>
>Memory latency plays a large role in overclockability.

Are you saying a 5900SE/XT would overclock more than a 5900U or NU?
April 2, 2004 7:11:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Granulated wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 03:39:07 GMT "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com>
> meeped :
>
> > Every couple of years the same questions got asked:
>
>
> Increase in memory has been pretty much gone hand in hand with the
> (quite staggering) drop in memory cost.




The only reason for the drop in memory cost is the innovation of new
technology.



SDRAM became obsolete due to RDRAM becoming very popular, although it
wasn't widely accepted.

DDR was introduced as the alternative to RD, boasting cheaper prices
for speeds faster than SD.

And now, chipsets are introducing the same technology used for rambus,
dual channel architecture.

The future (expect it in 6-12 months) will hold DDR2 and QDRAM,
starting at 600mhz and 1.6Ghz respectively.



Adding capacity for additional memory is entirely the chipset
manufacturer's responsibility.

If video card manufacturers designed their lines to support up to 1GB
physical memory, there would be a lot more modifications being done.

Ball Grid Array ram is so easy to solder and cheap to find, but
unfortunately the physical memory capacity on the GPU's built in memory
controller is limited to 256MB.


But this still doesn't indicate there will be added performance with
increased memory. The software and hardware developers must engineer
an algorithm to utilize all this memory.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 3, 2004 7:03:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Perhaps, but a 256 MB card, notably on the high-end like the FX5900, tends
to cost significantly more than an equivalent 128 MB one.

--
First of One
Formula SAE Racing:
http://fsae.utoronto.ca/


"Granulated" <doh@troublesomeodoursfreeuk.com> wrote in message
news:4s1o605ogk01l3f9t2drd6id6kivvr9jbt@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 03:39:07 GMT "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com>
meeped :
>
> >Every couple of years the same questions got asked:
>
>
> Increase in memory has been pretty much gone hand in hand with the (quite
> staggering) drop in memory cost.
April 3, 2004 7:14:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

PawsForThought wrote:

> > From: "teqguy" teqguy@techie.com
>
> > Research memory latency as well. If you buy a Geforce FX 5900SE/XT,
> > it'll have higher memory latency that the 5900 Ultra or standard.
> >
> >
> > Memory latency plays a large role in overclockability.
>
> Are you saying a 5900SE/XT would overclock more than a 5900U or NU?




No, it overclocks less.


The timings of a revision board XT's ram are 2.8ms, the U and NU are
rated for 2.2ms and some go as low as 2ms.


Points between crests at 2.8ms allow for frequency to fluctuate more
than a 2.2ms would, which causes less stability when frequency is
raised.


If you had a .001ms timing, you'd be able to overclock until the ram
melted, but the ram would be the size of a blood cell.
April 4, 2004 8:28:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

First of One wrote:

> Perhaps, but a 256 MB card, notably on the high-end like the FX5900,
> tends to cost significantly more than an equivalent 128 MB one.



As it should.


You wouldn't find the same price on a Hummer as you would a MiniCooper
would you?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 4, 2004 10:52:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

I don't know what you are trying to say. The Hummer costs more because it's
a low-volume vehicle.

The extra 128 MB of memory doesn't do a damn thing for performance, it has
no panache, and it certainly doesn't command a 3-week waiting period when
buying.

--
First of One
Formula SAE Racing:
http://fsae.utoronto.ca/


"teqguy" <teqguy@techie.com> wrote in message
news:1aMbc.9705$s34.4390@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> First of One wrote:
>
> > Perhaps, but a 256 MB card, notably on the high-end like the FX5900,
> > tends to cost significantly more than an equivalent 128 MB one.
>
>
>
> As it should.
>
>
> You wouldn't find the same price on a Hummer as you would a MiniCooper
> would you?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 5, 2004 2:01:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>From: "teqguy" teqguy@techie.com

>PawsForThought wrote:
>
>> > From: "teqguy" teqguy@techie.com
>>
>> > Research memory latency as well. If you buy a Geforce FX 5900SE/XT,
>> > it'll have higher memory latency that the 5900 Ultra or standard.
>> >
>> >
>> > Memory latency plays a large role in overclockability.
>>
>> Are you saying a 5900SE/XT would overclock more than a 5900U or NU?
>
>
>
>
>No, it overclocks less.
>
>
>The timings of a revision board XT's ram are 2.8ms, the U and NU are
>rated for 2.2ms and some go as low as 2ms.
>
>
>Points between crests at 2.8ms allow for frequency to fluctuate more
>than a 2.2ms would, which causes less stability when frequency is
>raised.
>
>
>If you had a .001ms timing, you'd be able to overclock until the ram
>melted, but the ram would be the size of a blood cell.

Great explanation! Thanks much :) 
April 6, 2004 10:26:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

First of One wrote:

> I don't know what you are trying to say. The Hummer costs more
> because it's a low-volume vehicle.
>
> The extra 128 MB of memory doesn't do a damn thing for performance,
> it has no panache, and it certainly doesn't command a 3-week waiting
> period when buying.




I'm saying, you wouldn't pay the price of a Cooper for a Hummer and
vice versa.

The Hummer is a larger vehicle, and thus requires a more powerful
engine and more materials.




I'll agree with you that memory capacity does not affect performance
(at least not yet). But we weren't talking about performance.


Card manufacturers are adding more components, so I think it's a given
that they're going to make you pay for them.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 6, 2004 9:00:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:27:28 +0100, "tinklemagoo"
<tinklemagoo@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>I am about to buy a Fx5900 card but am wary about buying 128mb card as
>latest games creeping towards 128mb as recommended minimum.
>
>What do folks reckon will be minimum graphics card memory to run newest
>games in 12 months.
>
>
Your question is incomplete.

To make use of lots of video memory, you need to run at
very high video resolution with detailed textures and AA set very
high. On all current video cards, this brings the GPU to its knees
with regard to acceptable frame-rate ( 30 FPS or higher) long
before the video memory is filled.

Experiment with Far Cry and crank all graphics options to
full. The resultant slide-show crawl has nothing to do with video
memory or the Far Cry engine ( which is VERY efficient ).
It has mostly to do with the GPU, with some lesser dependency
on CPU speed.

So the real answer to your question is:-

If you don't care about frame-rate, and are using professional
photo-processing software at very high resolution, you will
probably need 256 Meg.

If you are a FPS-style gaming enthusiast where frame-rate
is god, and the game-options set accordingly, the 256Meg
over 128Meg is a waste of money, even with the latest
top-end GPUs 5950u, 9800XT.

With the NV40, R420 the validity of having 256Meg video
memory becomes far greater, especially if the data-busses
are widened as well. But then some board vendors
will probably try to sell 512 Meg of memory to the well-heeled
but technically gullible.

John Lewis
April 7, 2004 5:11:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:27:28 +0100, "tinklemagoo"
> <tinklemagoo@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >I am about to buy a Fx5900 card but am wary about buying 128mb card as
> >latest games creeping towards 128mb as recommended minimum.
> >
> >What do folks reckon will be minimum graphics card memory to run newest
> >games in 12 months.
> >
> >
> Your question is incomplete.
>
> To make use of lots of video memory, you need to run at
> very high video resolution with detailed textures and AA set very
> high. On all current video cards, this brings the GPU to its knees
> with regard to acceptable frame-rate ( 30 FPS or higher) long
> before the video memory is filled.
>
> Experiment with Far Cry and crank all graphics options to
> full. The resultant slide-show crawl has nothing to do with video
> memory or the Far Cry engine ( which is VERY efficient ).
> It has mostly to do with the GPU, with some lesser dependency
> on CPU speed.
>
> So the real answer to your question is:-
>
> If you don't care about frame-rate, and are using professional
> photo-processing software at very high resolution, you will
> probably need 256 Meg.
>
> If you are a FPS-style gaming enthusiast where frame-rate
> is god, and the game-options set accordingly, the 256Meg
> over 128Meg is a waste of money, even with the latest
> top-end GPUs 5950u, 9800XT.
>
> With the NV40, R420 the validity of having 256Meg video
> memory becomes far greater, especially if the data-busses
> are widened as well. But then some board vendors
> will probably try to sell 512 Meg of memory to the well-heeled
> but technically gullible.
>
> John Lewis


With my old Titanium 4200 64Mb -- the 64 was enough to cover the
highest resolutions without 4xAA, so it will take a long time before
that 128Mb is getting choked by inner "dementia". The underpowered
GPUs like Gainward 5600 with 256 megabytes of ram are downright
baffoonery products.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2004 12:38:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In news:alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia, "First of One"
<daxinfx@yahoo.com> posted on Sun, 04 Apr 2004 18:52:27 GMT:

> The extra 128 MB of memory doesn't do a damn thing for performance, it has
> no panache, and it certainly doesn't command a 3-week waiting period when
> buying.

I've seen a few posts saying the extra memory isn't doing anybody any
good. But I haven't seen any real explanations as to how one can tell
exactly how much video memory is being utilized by a game.

I'm wanting to upgrade from an FX 5600XT to a 5950 Ultra, but I don't
like wasting my money. So I definitely don't want 256MB if it truly is a
waste. But if it's not a waste, then I don't mind buying it.

Damaeus
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2004 12:38:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In news:alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia, john.dsl@verizon.net (John
Lewis) posted on Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:00:40 GMT:

> If you don't care about frame-rate, and are using professional
> photo-processing software at very high resolution, you will
> probably need 256 Meg.

I use Paint Shop Pro to edit images as large as 7,000 x 10,000 and my
screen resolution is set to 1600 x 1200. Is video memory a very big help
here? Would 256 be better for me?

Damaeus
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 8, 2004 11:58:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

In news:alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia, "teqguy" <teqguy@techie.com>
posted on Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:51:46 GMT:

> The reason a lot of people don't report an increased performance
> between 128Mb and 256Mb is because most textures are processed after
> being applied to models, which reach up to 50Mb.

Wow! Thanks for such a detailed explanation. :-) It certainly makes
sense because I know that if you have 40 gigabytes of RAM in your
computer, Windows will use every last byte. I remember getting a memory
usage monitor one time when I had Win98. I saw that all my memory was
being eaten up. So I upgraded from 32 to 64 to 128 to 256 and finally
512 until I decided that Windows was just keeping things in memory until
something else came along to replace it. I now have 768 megabytes, but
I'll probably go on up to either 1.5 or 2 gigs of DDR400 because I do
edit a lot of massive images and my computer chokes on these images even
at 768 megs.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2004 12:27:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Wow! Thanks for such a detailed explanation. :-) It certainly makes
sense because I know that if you have 40 gigabytes of RAM in your
computer, Windows will use every last byte. I remember getting a memory
usage monitor one time when I had Win98. I saw that all my memory was
being eaten up. So I upgraded from 32 to 64 to 128 to 256 and finally
512 until I decided that Windows was just keeping things in memory until
something else came along to replace it. I now have 768 megabytes, but
I'll probably go on up to either 1.5 or 2 gigs of DDR400 because I do
edit a lot of massive images and my computer chokes on these images even
at 768 megs.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Go to analogx web site and download maxmem. It will sit in your task bar and
tell you how much of your mem is being used,you can also clear out some thats
not being used by clicking on the icon in the taskbar. Its in the software
side bar click on system to down load it. DOUG
!