Overclocking my 128MB Ti4200

[Austin]

As I said previously, you get a little boost by simply having 128MB with 4200 cards regardless of whether the extra RAM is needed. It is only small but it's enough to make the 13% faster RAM clock on the 64MB version yield only a 1-2% perf advantage and the 64MB will be much slower if more than 64MB becomes req'd. The Rad8500 also used this curious optimisation (where having 128MB gives a little boost even when it's not being used as such). Rad9000 and GF3 did not, they only gained in perf if something needed more than 64MB. SO it's VERY different to the DX9 on slow cards such as FX5200, FX5600 and Rad9600.

64MB is fine for a 4200 but now that all -8X cards should have the faster RAM clock the 128MB versions are the clear choice. Even with the slower clocked 4200 cards you certainly aren't losing out, in fact although it is close I'd say it's a better idea. Do rem that gfx card memory is not just for frame buffer usage. The frame buffer simply holds the full screen of pixels ready to be sent to the monitor, the gfx RAM also stores the back buffer (the next screen preparing to be sent to the monitor), 4-8MB is common for each of these buffers. More importantly your gfx RAM has to store Z-buffer (depth), pixel and vertex functions (DX8/9), geometric data and of course the crucial TEXTURE DATA which is often very large and getting larger with 128MB of gfx RAM being the norm now. There's no doubting that a 4200_64MB is a much better idea than a 128MB or even 256MB equipped FX5200 or Rad9200.

256MB is a waste and not likely to be worth the extra it costs, but in 6-12 months it may be well worth getting the 256MB card firstly because price diffs will be smaller and secondly things will begin to take advantage of it. Rem the 4200 was not the first card to offer 128MB, it was too soon for the GF3TI200 for example.

[d_fresh1]

on the note of ti4200s...Austin check ur pm...

sorry for spamming...

[Skii]

If I push mine further than 250 / 570, I'm asking for trouble

[Trickle]

Originally posted by Austin
As I said previously, you get a little boost by simply having 128MB with 4200 cards regardless of whether the extra RAM is needed.

Unfortunately you dont, though. Its as chris stated, and has always been that way. The designers did too good a job at making the games this year run on the majority of cards already in use so my extra £35 spent last year was wasted... no big deal - thats peanuts, but you need to keep a handle on whats going on in the market if you are thinking of setting up in business yourself. As always I pity the layman buying computer equipment.

Neither of the two links you use above substantiate any significant gain on having extra memory for the sake of it for realistic resses on the majority of games. Nor did the other benches at the time.

I bought my 128 card rather stupidly thinking that Doom3 would have already been out 3+ months and that morrowind, Unreal2 and the mmorpgs** etc may have benefited from >64. Its the equivalent of someone buying a 256meg 9700 card (if they existed etc). As chris said, by the time games come out that may use >128, the 9700 wouldnt be powerful enough to run them at high res anyway.

**The designers for these games are always talking about trying to keep the texture count down, even if you did occasionally benifit.

[Austin]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Check any benchmarks you like and you'll see the 13% extra RAM clock the old 64MB ones had only yielded around 1-2% extra perf which is totally unnoticable. Sure little needed more than 64MB true, but the 128MB cards were only £10 more on release and that way you had the potential to firstly gain a LOT when (if) something needed more than 64MB and secondly would sell your card on 2nd hand more easily and for more cash thus regaining the £10 extra you spent originally.

It is rather needless and redundant now that all 4200 should use the faster RAM clock giving the 128MB versions the clear advantage. I don't think there is a direct equivilence to make here, the Rad9800 with 256MB is much like the GF3 with 128MB were ... that's a little different as a more comparable comparison would be between Rad10000 256MB and GF4TI 128MB. As I said before, no bad choice at all, all I was really trying to get across was that you shouldn't worry if you had a 128MB card with lower clocks because it is not inferior at all and IMHO actually marginally better than the faster clocked 64MB ones.