Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1GB vs 512MB

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 11, 2010 11:33:13 AM

On a HD 5770, which is better for games on a 1920x1200 res? As in, price to performance and price to watt ratio.

edit: that's performance to watt ratio sorry!

thanks

More about : 1gb 512mb

June 11, 2010 12:32:22 PM

I would say 1G at that res,
June 11, 2010 12:52:28 PM

Hi, thanks for your reply.

The XFX 1GB one is £22 or 22.4% more expensive than the Asus 512MB one, ie. £120 vs £98.

Do you think that the 1GB one would provide more than 22% more performance at this res with for example Crysis Warhead, than the 512MB one? Also I'm running a PCIe v.1 motherboard here so that might be a bottleneck (or is it?).

cheers
Related resources
June 11, 2010 1:06:26 PM

OK, I'll try to keep it short but it's a mess, what are your system spec's, what games do you play, what games do you want to play, and you play at 1900x1200, BIG demand on the card, if you got a Pentium"D", some games will be held back by the CPU rather than the GPU, if you had a C2D, then the card would be the big factor,( the memory would really be helpful), if you aren't running all the eye candy at 4AA and V-Sync on, then the 512 might be OK, but is there a 25% difference in performance, I don't think so, but there are a lot of variables that can change the game
June 11, 2010 1:40:06 PM

OK yeah I should have given this info but here it is:
CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 940, stock clocks (3.0GHz) but might change when I get a new cooler next month
RAM: 4GB DDR2
PSU: 450W Corsair VX series but supposedly can go way above that
Mobo: nForce 520LE; PCIe. x16 v.1

The only game I play that doesn't run very well on max settings is Crysis (and warhead of course), oh yeah and GTA IV but that's not a priority (well not the reason I'm thinking of getting a new GPU anyway).

I never use AA on crysis, and don't need Vsync either. I would like to have texture settings at high or very high, and shaders at high or very high aswell.

cheers
June 11, 2010 1:42:17 PM

cool, good fraggin
June 11, 2010 1:42:46 PM

cool, you got enough CPU to keep up with the games alright, personally, the 1G card, you run alot of res, big CPU, seems like a moot point
June 11, 2010 1:43:23 PM

OK thanks, I'll save for the 1G card then.
June 11, 2010 4:29:54 PM

1GB is basically recommended for 1920 x 1080 and above since more textures are used. I haven't seen a comparision between a 512MB and 1GB version of the same video card @ 1920 x 1080 / 1920 x 1200 recently, but I think the performance is around 2% - 5% on average.

Performance varies from game to game, I think (I could be wrong) Quake IV got around a 20% boost. Some games take a hit in performance, but not beyond -2% from what I remember.
June 23, 2010 2:20:55 PM

jaguarskx said:
1GB is basically recommended for 1920 x 1080 and above since more textures are used. I haven't seen a comparision between a 512MB and 1GB version of the same video card @ 1920 x 1080 / 1920 x 1200 recently, but I think the performance is around 2% - 5% on average.

Performance varies from game to game, I think (I could be wrong) Quake IV got around a 20% boost. Some games take a hit in performance, but not beyond -2% from what I remember.


Hmm, I would have thought then that Crysis would have a large benefit from lots of VRAM as it loads a tonne of textures.
!