Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: x1600 128mb vs 256mb

  1. #1
    mush-mushroom b0redom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Middlesex
    Posts
    3,438
    Thanks
    174
    Thanked
    362 times in 279 posts
    • b0redom's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Some iMac thingy
      • CPU:
      • 3.4Ghz Quad Core i7
      • Memory:
      • 24GB
      • Storage:
      • 3TB Fusion Drive
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nViidia GTX 680MX
      • PSU:
      • Some iMac thingy
      • Case:
      • Late 2012 pointlessly thin iMac enclosure
      • Operating System:
      • OSX 10.8 / Win 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2713H
      • Internet:
      • Be+

    x1600 128mb vs 256mb

    Hi,
    Is there any performance improvement gained by adding the extra 128mb? I'm considering the merits of a MacBook Pro 15" or 17", if I install XP for occasional gaming, will I see any benefit?

    Cheers...

    Tom

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    536
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    4 times in 4 posts
    It willl make a difference. But the improvement is likely to be a few fps at best, so the cost of getting the extra 128meg may not make it worth it.
    I would try to go for it, but it will also depend on the games you are wanting to play.
    Asus Z170 Pro Gaming. i5-6500. 16gig Ripjaw 2400. Samsung 950pro NMVe 250gig+ 1tb Intel 660p. GTX Titan. Corsair TX650M.



    939 3800 X2 | 2gig corsairXMS 3200C2
    1950XT | 500gig,320,200,160
    Plextor DVD burner | Yamaha CRW-F1 CD-drive
    Thermaltake Xaser 3 w 480W FSP | X-fi fatal1ty

    Things have moved on since I first joined...

  3. #3
    mush-mushroom b0redom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Middlesex
    Posts
    3,438
    Thanks
    174
    Thanked
    362 times in 279 posts
    • b0redom's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Some iMac thingy
      • CPU:
      • 3.4Ghz Quad Core i7
      • Memory:
      • 24GB
      • Storage:
      • 3TB Fusion Drive
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nViidia GTX 680MX
      • PSU:
      • Some iMac thingy
      • Case:
      • Late 2012 pointlessly thin iMac enclosure
      • Operating System:
      • OSX 10.8 / Win 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2713H
      • Internet:
      • Be+
    Well it's only the occasional game, probably RTS rather than FPS, and that along with a very small processor upgrade is 300 quid.

    For a couple of frames I guess it's not worth it.

    Tom

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    The extra memory is pointless on slower cards as the memory is only utilised at higher resolutions (which the card can not handle at anything approaching playability). This is simply a manufacturing gimmick designed to attract people who think bigger is better! Don't fall for it
    AMD X2 @ 2.6Ghz, X1800XL @ 540/600

  5. #5
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,335
    Thanks
    714
    Thanked
    1,406 times in 1,188 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 33 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL
    There are already games that require a minimum 128MB on the graphics card just to run (eg Battle of Britain II). Textures are only going to get bigger, and though right at this moment a 128MB card is fine the latest cards are already much bigger and I wonder how long it will be before 256MB becomes the minimum to run some games.

    So, *right now* it is fairly pointless but if the upgrade is cheap enough then 256MB should get you a little futureproofing.

  6. #6
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    KFC HQ
    Posts
    55
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ultim8um View Post
    The extra memory is pointless on slower cards as the memory is only utilised at higher resolutions (which the card can not handle at anything approaching playability). This is simply a manufacturing gimmick designed to attract people who think bigger is better! Don't fall for it
    This man speaks the truth. But as somebody said earlier if its cheap, go for it, you have nothing to lose.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sapphire 256MB Radeon X1600 PRO AGP
    By ariel in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-02-2006, 07:43 PM
  2. 128MB or 256MB??
    By Feck in forum Graphics Cards
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 29-04-2004, 06:24 PM
  3. 9600xt 128mb or 256mb
    By Mike.c in forum Graphics Cards
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-02-2004, 01:35 AM
  4. 256mb Radeon 9600 slower than 128mb?
    By Paddy in forum Graphics Cards
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-12-2003, 12:29 PM
  5. Help !
    By KDH in forum Graphics Cards
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 30-10-2003, 11:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •