Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why do they offer more vram if its useless?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 4, 2009 2:04:51 PM

why do manufacturers offer more vram in a videocard that cant utilize the additional ram anyway?

palit gts 250 2gb is and example. and then there are lots of 9800gt and 9600gt that has 1gb

More about : offer vram useless

a c 235 U Graphics card
June 4, 2009 2:25:21 PM

its called product differentiation, simply a marketing gimmick
a c 86 U Graphics card
June 4, 2009 2:29:41 PM

bigger numbers look better on the marketing material
Related resources
June 4, 2009 3:07:00 PM

Kari said:
bigger numbers look better on the marketing material

its not this. if its this, then they should put like 512,000,000 bytes. instead of 512mb.
a b U Graphics card
June 4, 2009 3:36:54 PM

BruceOTB said:
its not this. if its this, then they should put like 512,000,000 bytes. instead of 512mb.



Yes it is this. But you have to consider that most people have no idea what 512,000,000 bytes is.
The person who is going to buy a 1 gig or 2 gig video card only understands some cards have half a gig, a gig, or 2 gig of memory.
And they have always heard more memory is better, so they look for the card with the most memory, in simplistic terms that they can understand.
Memory is cheap, so yeah a manufacturer can increase their profit by adding more memory and charging a premium for it, because some people will by it just because it has more. Have seen it over and over and over again at retail stores.
How many times have I heard a sales person say "We just got this new card in 1 (or 2gig) of memory, it is the fastest thing we have on shelf! You just gotta get this one if you really want a powerful card!) And they actually buy the thing, for about double the cost of the same card with half gig of memory that would do the job perfectly fine.
June 4, 2009 3:42:38 PM

higher memoery on cards means more performace at higher res, to some degree over wise its a waste, and for those on 32bit OS I feel sorry for ya ;) 
a b U Graphics card
June 4, 2009 4:39:18 PM

I wonder if they have this available at Nordstrom's and the like? I'd like to hang at the demo booth.
a b U Graphics card
June 4, 2009 4:41:09 PM

Newegg Shell Shocker worthy.
June 4, 2009 9:04:13 PM

Well, that's the kind of world we live in...
a b U Graphics card
June 4, 2009 9:45:51 PM

yep badge. if you've noticed i'm already at the demo booth. they actually are giving out free popcorn too :D 
June 5, 2009 3:31:58 AM

More VRam for higher Rez , if you paly at 1920x1200 for example you are going to love that VRam. but if your playing at 1680x105 1GB is good enough , and even lower 512MB is fine.
June 5, 2009 6:59:50 AM

a 9600gt could hardly breathe in 1920x1080, regardless of how much ram you put in it.
June 5, 2009 8:33:55 AM

Its called a consumer....oh look this is a cool card and it has 1GB!!!!! thats how much the GTX 260 has OMG it must be as good!.....this card MUST BE FAST !1!1!1111!!11.....

Anyways.....Vram is all good if your packing a decent GPU....but its pointless to an extent....yeah at 19xx/1xxx resolutions having extra vram for added settings is good but not if the card can barely drive these settings....
a b U Graphics card
June 5, 2009 10:53:45 AM

BruceOTB said:
a 9600gt could hardly breathe in 1920x1080, regardless of how much ram you put in it.


For what game?

You forget that their cards can do 8X SSAA, which when playing HalfLife2 at high res is probably playable on even the GF9600GT, so the extra memory might still come in handy, especially if enabling HDR.

With CUDA thrown into the mix as well, there alot more applications for memory than just as a buffer for graphics.

While it's not something that 99% of users would have a need for, it's also not something people are forced to buy, so whether they get a 512MB model or a 2GB model it doesn't really matter, but having that choice is better than not having the choice iif someone found a use for it. It not like they're forcing people to buy it at a higher price, they offer both higher and lower memory options. It's like an overclocked version of a card, might be the same underlying hardware, but you pay 30% more for a changed bios versus your own overclock?

Since they buy memory in bulk, sometimes with the way the devices are configured they can slap on that larger Mbit per chip memory on pretty cheaply as left over for another line that requires that high bit per pin count (like a 256MB+ 64bit solution etc), so offering it as and option takes little effort on their part.

BTW, the more appropriate question... why do you care if they offer 2GB?
Are you jealous and feel you missed out, or do you need low GDDR prices for a pet project?
June 5, 2009 12:26:41 PM

I can't help wanting to add I noticed in gta IV you can see having more vram allows you to choose better video settings.

You can actually see the amount of vram you'll be needing for particular settings.

Furthermore the price difference between two identical cards except for the amount of vram isn't that big.
June 5, 2009 12:33:41 PM

tomvertommen said:
I can't help wanting to add I noticed in gta IV you can see having more vram allows you to choose better video settings.

You can actually see the amount of vram you'll be needing for particular settings.

Furthermore the price difference between two identical cards except for the amount of vram isn't that big.

Yeahp....but is the card even capable of running these larger textures without losing phenomenal amounts of performance...
June 5, 2009 3:33:56 PM

Well,

I can't answer that...We should test that to know it.
a b U Graphics card
June 5, 2009 7:34:42 PM

I use the My Beautiful Breasts Essentials Kit 9600GT 512MB in my HTPC currently. Use it mostly to watch DVDs on a Samsung 40" at 19 x 10. I could use a little more My Firm and Beautiful Breasts Primer VRam. The 256 bit memory interface perks up what I have already and should work nicely with an enhancement.
June 5, 2009 8:05:52 PM

BruceOTB said:
why do manufacturers offer more vram in a videocard that cant utilize the additional ram anyway?

palit gts 250 2gb is and example. and then there are lots of 9800gt and 9600gt that has 1gb


This is because a lot of stupid mindless brainwashed people will make them tons of profit by gullibly believing that more vram will help :) 
June 5, 2009 8:22:18 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
For what game?

You forget that their cards can do 8X SSAA, which when playing HalfLife2 at high res is probably playable on even the GF9600GT, so the extra memory might still come in handy, especially if enabling HDR.

With CUDA thrown into the mix as well, there alot more applications for memory than just as a buffer for graphics.

While it's not something that 99% of users would have a need for, it's also not something people are forced to buy, so whether they get a 512MB model or a 2GB model it doesn't really matter, but having that choice is better than not having the choice iif someone found a use for it. It not like they're forcing people to buy it at a higher price, they offer both higher and lower memory options. It's like an overclocked version of a card, might be the same underlying hardware, but you pay 30% more for a changed bios versus your own overclock?

Since they buy memory in bulk, sometimes with the way the devices are configured they can slap on that larger Mbit per chip memory on pretty cheaply as left over for another line that requires that high bit per pin count (like a 256MB+ 64bit solution etc), so offering it as and option takes little effort on their part.

BTW, the more appropriate question... why do you care if they offer 2GB?
Are you jealous and feel you missed out, or do you need low GDDR prices for a pet project?


whats up with you pal? why so offensive? are you hurt cuz ur one of those who bought a gts 2gb? :pt1cable: 

answering ur question, im just wondering because AFAIK, vram is useless if ur graphics card cant utilize it. (duh)
a b U Graphics card
June 5, 2009 8:26:40 PM

rewindlabs said:
Yeahp....but is the card even capable of running these larger textures without losing phenomenal amounts of performance...


Or conversely is it faster to run uncompressed textures or have the overhead of compression?

It's not an easy thing to check, but it's very dependant on the title and the methods used, and the settings prefered by the user.

Just look at when HL2 was young and the X800XL with the extra memory outperformed the X800Xt and GF6800U in 8XAA scenes because of that, and the GF9600GT is easily more powerful than those 3 cards.
a b U Graphics card
June 5, 2009 8:43:17 PM

BruceOTB said:
whats up with you pal? why so offensive? are you hurt cuz ur one of those who bought a gts 2gb? :pt1cable: 

answering ur question, im just wondering because AFAIK, vram is useless if ur graphics card cant utilize it. (duh)


As useless as your question and your posts about it. [:thegreatgrapeape:6]
a b U Graphics card
June 5, 2009 9:07:25 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Or conversely is it faster to run uncompressed textures or have the overhead of compression?

It's not an easy thing to check, but it's very dependant on the title and the methods used, and the settings prefered by the user.

Just look at when HL2 was young and the X800XL with the extra memory outperformed the X800Xt and GF6800U in 8XAA scenes because of that, and the GF9600GT is easily more powerful than those 3 cards.


When HL2 was young 256mb vram was a solid amount and 512mb of vram was almost unheard of.

Here's a good analogy to this whole discussion (kindof anyway): Think of a road in a highly populated area. Which would be best a 2 lane (512mb) or a 4 lane (1gb)? The correct answer is 4 lane because it is needed for fitting all the traffic through.
Now think of a road in an area with a very low population. Which would be best a 2 lane (512mb) or a 4 lane (1gb)? The correct answer in this case would be 2 lane because 4 lanes would be completely unnecessary for the tiny amount of traffic and would never be used.

Now back to the real issue. In a modern game could a gpu use a full gig of memory? If you can play at high resolutions like 1920x1080 and above yes. Can a mid-range gpu (Think Radeon HD 4670/Geforce 9600 GSO) play any modern games at high resolutions? Not at acceptable detail levels.

So what is the point in putting 1 or 2 gigs of memory on low to mid range graphics cards? To people that aren't well versed in graphics cards the more memory they can get on the card the better seems like the most logical conclusion.

In retrospect that analogy I just wrote kindof sucks but hopefully it at least makes some sense.
June 5, 2009 9:12:42 PM

edeawillrule said:
When HL2 was young 256mb vram was a solid amount and 512mb of vram was almost unheard of.

Here's a good analogy to this whole discussion (kindof anyway): Think of a road in a highly populated area. Which would be best a 2 lane (512mb) or a 4 lane (1gb)? The correct answer is 4 lane because it is needed for fitting all the traffic through.
Now think of a road in an area with a very low population. Which would be best a 2 lane (512mb) or a 4 lane (1gb)? The correct answer in this case would be 2 lane because 4 lanes would be completely unnecessary for the tiny amount of traffic and would never be used.

Now back to the real issue. In a modern game could a gpu use a full gig of memory? If you can play at high resolutions like 1920x1080 and above yes. Can a mid-range gpu (Think Radeon HD 4670/Geforce 9600 GSO) play any modern games at high resolutions? Not at acceptable detail levels.

So what is the point in putting 1 or 2 gigs of memory on low to mid range graphics cards? To people that aren't well versed in graphics cards the more memory they can get on the card the better seems like the most logical conclusion.

In retrospect that analogy I just wrote kindof sucks but hopefully it at least makes some sense.


I like that analogy , maybe it will get some of things people have been saying through others skulls. lol.
a b U Graphics card
June 5, 2009 10:11:54 PM

edeawillrule said:
When HL2 was young 256mb vram was a solid amount and 512mb of vram was almost unheard of...

In retrospect that analogy I just wrote kindof sucks but hopefully it at least makes some sense.


Not a bad analogy, but you miss the point. Not everyone plays modern games, some people buy mid-range cards to play their older CS:S etc games at their highest supported resolution/settings.

For people like that whho cannot afford a higher end card, but still want to play at 8X SSAA, you'll get that cross over where a higher power card with 512MB of memory might get limited whereas a less power core card might be more than sufficient for the game as long as it has space for AA with HDR.

I'm in no way saying this is the common use, or even the best use of someone's money, but there are situations where it won't be useless and may be fine for the application.

Just depends on the app and situation. Same with GPGPU or 3D Workstation situations, not the norm, but would be useful for large data sets.
a b U Graphics card
June 5, 2009 11:06:14 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Not a bad analogy, but you miss the point. Not everyone plays modern games, some people buy mid-range cards to play their older CS:S etc games at their highest supported resolution/settings.

For people like that whho cannot afford a higher end card, but still want to play at 8X SSAA, you'll get that cross over where a higher power card with 512MB of memory might get limited whereas a less power core card might be more than sufficient for the game as long as it has space for AA with HDR.

I'm in no way saying this is the common use, or even the best use of someone's money, but there are situations where it won't be useless and may be fine for the application.

Just depends on the app and situation. Same with GPGPU or 3D Workstation situations, not the norm, but would be useful for large data sets.


More than 512mb of memory is even more useless in older games than in modern ones no matter how much SSAA, AF, or Resolution you turn up! These CS:S games you keep mentioning have no need for even 512mb of memory much less 1gb. Even if you turned it up to 16X SSAA & 16X AF at 1680x1050 the gpu would be too slow for you to tap into the extra vram in the first place!

Sheesh...
a b U Graphics card
June 5, 2009 11:08:49 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Not a bad analogy, but you miss the point. Not everyone plays modern games, some people buy mid-range cards to play their older CS:S etc games at their highest supported resolution/settings.

For people like that whho cannot afford a higher end card, but still want to play at 8X SSAA, you'll get that cross over where a higher power card with 512MB of memory might get limited whereas a less power core card might be more than sufficient for the game as long as it has space for AA with HDR.

I'm in no way saying this is the common use, or even the best use of someone's money, but there are situations where it won't be useless and may be fine for the application.

Just depends on the app and situation. Same with GPGPU or 3D Workstation situations, not the norm, but would be useful for large data sets.


And as for GPGPU situations such as video transcoding you have to at least have an upper-mid-range gpu to deliver reasonable performance anyway.

3D workstation situations don't count in this discussion since it is about normal commercial gpus that are typically used for gaming.
June 6, 2009 4:53:13 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
As useless as your question and your posts about it. [:thegreatgrapeape:6]


then why bother posting here? get a life. just smoke weed or something to get that happiness u need. dont spill ur problems to other people. :hello: 

just get out of here. ur useless to me.
June 6, 2009 3:22:58 PM

Quote:
Judging by your inability to use proper english, I would say you have smoked to much of it.


OT: Oh, theres a new hater. I know theres a problem with my last post, do you know what its called? :) 
June 6, 2009 3:25:32 PM

btw, whats a "pet project"?
June 6, 2009 5:12:15 PM

Bruce..... a pet project is something special you do on the computer on your own time. like make your own 3-D movie. Or do CUDA coding. or something like that. an I hope yo've been listening to everyone in this thread , they've all said similar things.
June 6, 2009 6:51:26 PM

Why would i give a damn about that? I'm not like you boy.
Away you go stranger.
Bye.

Gin Fushicho: yeah i know. this was about to end but then you were like of implying that a 9600gt 1gb, or other not-so-strong 1gb cards for that matter, would do well on full hd.

..and then, here comes Mr. greatgrapeape to make things more lively.
June 6, 2009 7:13:22 PM

most people are still illiterate as far as chipsets are concerned.
so the first thing that catches the attention of these people is the amount of video memory in a card,
most of the shopkeepers in my place dont even know about chipsets , they sell cards based on memory. you ask them,
Me:hey which card?
Shopkeeper:nvidia
Me: ok which nvidia?
Shopkeeper: 512mb, its the best.
Me: no, which chipset?
Shopkeeper: whats that?

so the thing is , if shopkeeper does not know about graphic card then how am i supposed to know.
thats the fact that most of the companies know. thats why they bank upon it.
June 7, 2009 1:17:56 AM

BruceOTB said:
Why would i give a damn about that? I'm not like you boy.
Away you go stranger.
Bye.

Gin Fushicho: yeah i know. this was about to end but then you were like of implying that a 9600gt 1gb, or other not-so-strong 1gb cards for that matter, would do well on full hd.

..and then, here comes Mr. greatgrapeape to make things more lively.


Well it will do ood in full HD if your watching movies , if your going to play a game at say 1680x1050 get at least the 9800. but if your talking about playing games at FULL HD 1920x1080 then there are VERY few cards that good. And I'm sorry if we all confused you.
June 7, 2009 2:20:24 AM

Why would they make something like that?! O_o its useless.
a b U Graphics card
June 7, 2009 2:22:43 AM

BruceOTB said:
then why bother posting here? get a life. just smoke weed or something to get that happiness u need. dont spill ur problems to other people. :hello: 

just get out of here. ur useless to me.


a b U Graphics card
June 7, 2009 2:29:33 AM

BruceOTB said:
why do manufacturers offer more vram in a videocard that cant utilize the additional ram anyway?

palit gts 250 2gb is and example. and then there are lots of 9800gt and 9600gt that has 1gb


why do manufacturers offer more vram in a videocard that cant utilize the additional ram anyway?

LIke what up fat tub of goo sissy punk. Let me here it now..!!




a b U Graphics card
June 7, 2009 2:37:24 AM

Quote:
Immoral business decisions.


It was this one.
June 7, 2009 7:03:09 AM

It's a marketing gimmick, unfortunately. Those uneducated enough to not know the GPU offers the majority of the performance, not the variation in RAM size, will easily be tricked by bigger RAM size on video cards.

I, for example, bought a 4670 1GB at a really good price when I built my new budget computer about a half a year ago, but in reality I would've been better off spending just a little more on a 4830 512MB, even though it's got only half the RAM.
a b U Graphics card
June 7, 2009 11:17:12 AM



Quote:
the majority of the performance, not the variation in RAM size, will easily be tricked by bigger RAM size on video cards.



Yeah, depeding on what adjustment that may be made possible due to it having more random access graphic memory as opposed to less. Like the storage of graphics produced data in random access memory waiting to be processed by the GPU, for example. Someone was trying to explain to BruceOTB how RAM amount can work in application and how so technically. But, BruceOTB decided to stay on the two lane rode with less traffic because it gave him even less to think about. It's not that a Moderator tried to help him understand how the amount of graphics random access memory might matter, technically. And the disrespect OP showed.

It's the stupid smile tatoo BruceOTB (off track betting?) refuses to get of his face that really speaks to his technical knowledge on this subject.
June 7, 2009 11:31:15 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
As useless as your question and your posts about it. [:thegreatgrapeape:6]


^+1

forum ownage

Uber :D 
June 7, 2009 12:34:36 PM

Why, what did i do? Was i the one being offensive in the first place? ST*U badge you have nothing to do here. Get off ur keyboard and find a life outside, pus*y. Don't deal with other people's problems.

June 7, 2009 12:43:48 PM

Yo ape, lock this thread already. This was already a dying thread (i wasnt replying anymore) but then a little loser boy who probably gets bullied in school a lot pops out of nowhere and starts returning the favor here on the net, here on a place where no one knows him and no one can hurt him.
- deleted by TGGA -
June 7, 2009 1:13:37 PM

I'm sorry to all the people who wasted their time here by reading nonsense posts, i know my replies were a bit overboard, but i strongly believe that the one who's at fault is the one who provokes.
a b U Graphics card
June 8, 2009 12:56:06 AM

I believe that there's spirited debate, escalation even, and then there's just plain forum insanity; you can guess which path I think you've gone down.
a b U Graphics card
June 8, 2009 1:29:57 AM

edeawillrule said:
More than 512mb of memory is even more useless in older games than in modern ones no matter how much SSAA, AF, or Resolution you turn up! These CS:S games you keep mentioning have no need for even 512mb of memory much less 1gb. Even if you turned it up to 16X SSAA & 16X AF at 1680x1050 the gpu would be too slow for you to tap into the extra vram in the first place!

Sheesh...


"These CS:S games?" Do you even know the game? It's not a question of the game needing 512MB to run, it's a question of what you do post processing to increase the memory requirements.
It's far from shader or texture heavy, so the hardest part will be adding AA to the scene which is more memory intensive than shader intensive, and the GF9600GT has more than enough back end power to run AA. If the GF7900 and even GF6800 could run the similar resolution at 4X then it's not going to be stress by the shader load it'll be the AA's demand for memory that'll limit the card, that's why I mention older titles. Newer title it would bethe front end that would matter, but for something like CS:S it's not going to bottom out on fill-rate.

edeawillrule said:
And as for GPGPU situations such as video transcoding you have to at least have an upper-mid-range gpu to deliver reasonable performance anyway.


Not in every case, and in the case you give (video transcoding), no you don't, not at all. A GF9600GT is just shy of the performance of the far more powerful GTX260, you'd need to go to a GF9500 to see the drop-off. A GF9600GT is a pretty powerful little chip and cheap source of power for many GPGPU developers and casual users. But I'm not talking about the easy job of video transcoding I'm talking about large data set applicaitons like economic analysis and geomatic work, all of which do well with mid-size graphics cards, and improve with large memory amounts for large data sets (which is why you see 4GB on the higher end cards [even those based on the slightly more powerful GF9800]). You have input and output memory tied to the VRAM as well as ongoing buffers including context, so it adds up quickly.
Also, because of how GPUs divide their calculations, large memory amounts mean you can divide large tasks among more waveforms/threads, which helps improve performance.

3D workstation situations don't count in this discussion since it is about normal commercial gpus that are typically used for gaming. said:
3D workstation situations don't count in this discussion since it is about normal commercial gpus that are typically used for gaming.


What? Making arbitrary rules now for this?
Sure they count, especially for the large number of people who do casual 3D work on 'commercial gpus', which are typically bought by both gamers and people looking for cheap 3D animation solutions. Many of the reviewers here at THG are these type of users and use their gaming cards for workstation work.

Those are example of where it's useful, like I said before, I'm not advocating the average user buy it, nor that for many people it's the best use of their money, however it's still not useless, just not something most people would have any use for.
That being said far too many people focus on memory size rather than the entire package, and marketing people will take advantage of that. But that's still not a reason to be equally as ignorant of it's uses in the opposite direction.
a b U Graphics card
June 8, 2009 7:05:07 AM

All of you upsize your panties, they are clearly too tight.
a b U Graphics card
June 8, 2009 9:06:49 AM

:o 
!