Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

core vs memory clock speed: which more important?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 26, 2003 1:20:41 AM

For gaming, which clock speed is more important, core or memory?

Take for instance the 5900 sp version by msi (not ultra, see other post in this forum for more details about sp card). My card is currently running at 468/823 for core and memory. This compares to 400/850 for the 128 mb non-ultra 5900.

Which card would be faster in most games? I'm assuming the core speed is more important since the ultra card runs at 450/850 (hence core 50 mhz faster vs non-ultra).
November 26, 2003 2:48:03 AM

i beleive the core helps with shaders/geometry (ala DX9/Halo)
and the memory helps with Anisotropic Filtering/ Anti-Aliasing.

However i may be talking rubbish. And dont forget the higher cards also overclock. (who runs a 5900Ultra at standard speeds???!!) Mines at 525/950...
............................................
Render times? You'll find me down the pub...
November 26, 2003 10:44:22 AM

Memory is more important. Bandwidth is king.

<b>I help because you suck</b>
Related resources
November 26, 2003 1:03:09 PM

Both are very important.

The core will be more important in geometry heavy titles or titles making heavy use of shaders.

The memory will be more important in fillrate limited titles, or if AA and ansio are used.

------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055
November 26, 2003 5:10:06 PM

Well if you plan on doing filtering then you may wanna focus on the memory a bit more. Other than that hit on the core.

F-DISK-Format-Reinstal DO DA!! DO DA!!
!