512MB vs. 256MB on a 7950GT

[philipbain]

I'm looking to buy a 7950GT and have a 19" CRT which I tend to run at 1280x1024 but will run comfortably in 1600x1200 at a decent refresh rate. So with a realistic maximum resolution in games of 1600x1200 in mind is it worth paying extra and getting the 512MB version over the 256MB version?

[MSIC]

Memory on a graphics card will get used up, as you are correctly implying, dependant on textures that need to be filled (and the more detail / resolution, the more textures). This gets ramped up with AA etc.
Am not sure off the top of my head about the maths of this for your situation, but when I have a spare moment i'll try to find a link to be able to work it out.

[chuckskull]

The 512MB is a pre-requisite for the highest textures in a few games, but you can barely tell the differennce TBH. I'd get the 512MB, because it will keep it's value and last longer performance wise.

[Dark Horse]

The 256mb x1900xt does lose out a bit to the 512mb version, especially at higher resolutions. I suspect it will be similar for the 7950gt although can't find any benches to prove it.

[kalniel]

Very tricky decision (I'm also wading through it for a friend). In general money spent on gfx memory could have been spent better just going for a faster model (X1900XT for example), but there are beginning to be one or two games that can take advantage of it (modded oblivion for eg.).

Thing is I think by the time it actually has any real effect on the playabilty (ie, how long it lasts) we could well be into directX 10 cards.

[Smokey21]

Well a 256mb X1900XT is faster than a 7950GT 512mb, most of the time, and is cheaper, i really can't see the point in the 7950 at it's current price.

As for the 256mb and 512mb, at 1600x1200 you would notice a difference, though it's less of a difference with nvidia cards, than ATI cards, for some reason, i think its anandtech prove this in a recent review.

[philipbain]

I would agree that in a few diciplines the X1900XT 256MB can outpace the 7950GT 512MB, but in the majority of tasks the 7950GT is the better card, plus it runs cooler and hence has more headroom for overclocking whilst keeping noise to a minimum, so whilst I would never mock anyone for getting a X1900XT 256MB as it's clearly capable, i'd rather go for the 7950GT on balance of performance and living with it, plus nVidia's OpenGL performance tends to be a little better, which is probably down to drivers more than anything else, though as many are likely to say, OpenGL performance isnt that vital nowadays as the vast majority of games use DirectX but there are a few titles I play that lean heavilly on OpenGL so it has to be a consideration. I'm still not decided on whether i'm going to go with the 512MB version, as it seems, as was stated in this very thread infact, that the difference in memory capacity on the nVidia cards seems to have a smaller impact than on competing ATi cards.

[Rohan]

7950GT 512MB vs X1900XT 256MB at [H]ardOCP

The X1900XT 256MB appears to come out on top in most games

It seems that the 512MB of RAM on the GeForce 7950 GT doesn’t benefit it all that much compared to the competition in the latest shader intensive games. Perhaps if you were running at super high resolutions and antialiasing settings would you see a difference, but unfortunately the GeForce 7950 GT doesn’t have the horsepower to push those kinds of settings where it would be stressed.

[chuckskull]

Yeah The 256MB XT, pipped it by a few frames in most games. What I perked my attention was how high it OC'd and thats with the passive cooler. I have a Top spec zalman HSF, waiting for a graphics card.

I'm tempted to get a bog standard 7950 512 and clock the hell out of it. I can overlook a slight performance from ATi as I have an SLI mobo I want to put to use in the near future and it comes out on top in BF2 which is probably what I play most. Both amazing cards for the price.

[Smokey21]

At anandtech the only game the 7950GT beats the the 256mb X1900 is oblivian, and thats due to the extra memory, and at those framerates both are unplayable.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2833&p=10

Why do people want a 7950GT? Once 4X AA is on, the X1900 pull even futher away, oh and you get no shimmering.

[chuckskull]

If I had a crossfire motherboard, I'd buy a X1900XT 512MB. But I have an SLi so It'll be 7950GT.

It's very easy to forget the performance difference is only a few frames in most instances. I want SLi, the 7900GT is still overpriced, the 7900GTX is beyond what I'm will to pay. So the 7950GT slips in well.

[kalniel]

*nods* and noise/cooling is a very important consideration for some people.. that's why I think it's a very tricky choice

However, the OP is asking about the differences between memory on the same card (for the right reasons - he plays OpenGL games). I think the question really is could the OP spend the money saved on anything else that might improve the performance? If that money would buy you an X-Fi over onboard sound then I'd say go with the 256mb and get an X-Fi. However, if you have the money, and nothing else to spend it on, then sure, why not go for the 512mb and buy yourself a little bit more longevity on the card (if you can put up with lower speed later on.)

[philipbain]

Thanks for all the opinions expressed, i've now ordered a GeForce 7950GT 512MB and am really happy with the choice, i've updated my computer spec to what it will be this weekend when everything comes together.