Mubbers

Something I'm keen to understand is this:

PC1 has 512Mb RAM and a Radeon 9700 pro 128Mb

PC2 has 768Mb RAM and a GF4 4600 Ti w/ 128Mb

In all other respects the PCs are the same.

Which runs UT2003 with the highest FPS, everything switched on?

OR if they both started with the same amount of RAM (512Mb) how much more RAM would you have to add to PC2 before it had the same graphics performance as PC1?

Mubbers

---

Nick M

Ah. Good question as usual Mub's.

I suppose that PC1 will run UT2003 with all game details set on high; if there are a few programs ( not background proggies, but actual apps such as listed below ) running in the background.

For instance; IE; Word; FTP Program, Fontpage, Photoshop, the less the better.

Nick M

Oh, and for your question; if both had 512MB and those cards; In don't think even if you added another 512 you could get the FPS that the Radeon will give you; but the nVidia Geforce 4 4400 and 4600 are both awsome cards; and preformance is excellent.

Mubbers

It just baffles me - obviously all programmes, apps and games need MOBO RAM to run.

Games, because of heavy graphics use need a better card, but why can't the card just use MOBO RAM? I.E. graphics card with no on board RAM - just uses MOBO RAM...

Is the difference between those two cards or any card for that matter more because of the processor and less the RAM? Should the question really have asked:

If I could put more RAM on my graphics card... Infact why can't you have extra RAM slots on graphics cards???

We need Sazar to answer our questions!!

Mubbers

---

Nick M

" Is the difference between those two cards or any card for that matter more because of the processor and less the RAM "

I think the performance of the graphics card mainly depends on the GPU, secondly the amount onboard RAM on the card, and lastly, it's speed.

:P

Zedric

Hi again Mubbers! Here are my thoughts on the subject:

- Graphics using RAM on the mobo instead of on the graphics card directly is much much slower than using RAM on the card. This is because you need to pass through a number of circuits and buses to get to the RAM every time.

- More than a certain amount of RAM won't speed up things since the game/app only allocates as much as it needs to run properly. So 768 MB isn't better than 512 MB if the game only allocates say 300 MB tops.

- More RAM may even slow things down. More RAM requires more bits to address the RAM area. More bits => more work => slower. Some GF4Ti4200 cards perform (marginally) better with only 64 MB RAM instead of 128 MB.

- You won't really need RAM slots on the graphics cards since games rarely allocates even above 64 MB. Jedi II I heard can allocate more since it uses very large textures.

Btw, PC2 won't perform better even if you stuff more RAM in it. 512 is enough. 768 won't make a difference as far as I know.

---

Mubbers

"When grashopper walk on rice paper with no tear master jedi will he be."

Thank's Zed & co. that's helped me understand this thing about graphics cards etc... One day I might be able to help someone instead of asking all the question!

Mubbers

P.S. Actually if anyone one needs to know about fishing or drilling oil wells I'd be glad to help, perhaps we should start a fourm -"Fishing in Oil Wells"?

---

Sazar

kind of hard to compare the 2... first off the bandwidths of the cards and the way they process graphics is COMPLETELY different..

also bear in mind that 512mb ram is more than sufficient to play games... additional ram helps speed things up but unlikely to notice more than a token increase in performance for games... might just be smoother...

concerning the memory... currently the 2.8ns bga memory used by the radeon 9700pro is THE fastest on the market...

the 4600 as far as I know is designed for 128mb but might be able to take more.. not sure since I have never owned one... the 9700pro is designed to handle a max of 256mb... which is what future version will carry...

the memory for gpu's is different from regular memory... its faster and is optimized for one thing only...

now zedric is on the mark with his comments BUT the ti4200 with 64 is faster than the 128mb version not because of additional ram but because the 64mb is clocked higher than the 128mb version, this is for the AGP 4x version... the newer revision 2 (with 8x agp) has higher clocked ram...

doom III is supposed to be using 80mb memory from your gpu for textures which seems like a lot but I am sure that it will consume far more at higher res... per the grapvine the ut2k3 super duper uber res which will be unlocked when cards with 256mb on board ddr come out uses upto 140mb onboard memory... which will not therefore work on our measly 64mb and 128mb cards

more onboard memory in video cards is better as more textures can be loaded into there... get at least 128mb if you are buying now..

---

Mubbers

"When look you deeper, clearer the answer will be"

Thank's for the info Better start saving!!

Mub's

---

Nick M

Why mub's you getting a new PC? What kind :P ?

Taurus

i know i'm late, but i just got stuff to add..

the radeon 9700 pro has something like 18gb/sec of memory bandwidth thanks to it's 256-bit ddr... while the geforce4 ti 4600 has a measly 10.4gb/sec with it's 128-bit ddr.

to help you understand why graphics cards don't use system memory, pc2700 ddr has 2.7gb/sec of bandwidth. kinda puts it in perspective, eh?

if i were to choose between those two pc's, i'd definitely go with the radeon... and if you find out you need extra memory for whatever reason, you can get another 512mb for like $125 and have 1gb for major applications. but 512mb alone is good enough for all games.

Mubbers

No, not buying just yet!

But I was really at a loss to understand all the talk about graphics cards - so now actually I do understand

Thank's for the input, the best thing is I'll know what to look out for amidst all those confusing specs and will be able to make a better selection next time.

Mubbers

---