128bit Mem Or 256 Bit?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: Shiranai_Baka
How big of a difference does the 128bit and 256bit memory make?
Posted by: kaiweiler
in GFX cards, I would go with 128, search the forums, it's been reasoned why about a million times
Posted by: tesco
Originally posted by kaiweiler@18 April 2004 - 18:25
in GFX cards, I would go with 128, search the forums, it's been reasoned why about a million times
he said BITS not megabytes...
if you actually mean mb, then kailweiler is right, but if you did mean bits then 256bit would theoretically be twice as fast, although in real world u wont notice twice as fast...
Posted by: kaiweiler
Originally posted by ROSSCO_2004+18 April 2004 - 19:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ROSSCO_2004 @ 18 April 2004 - 19:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kaiweiler@18 April 2004 - 18:25
in GFX cards, I would go with 128, search the forums, it's been reasoned why about a million times
he said BITS not megabytes...
if you actually mean mb, then kailweiler is right, but if you did mean bits then 256bit would theoretically be twice as fast, although in real world u wont notice twice as fast... [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: oops, thought he meant mb!
lol my mistake
anyway....
yeah common sense would tell you 256 is theoretically twice as fast as 128 right?? theoretically....
but in mb, for gfx cards, they use lower quality ram for the 256 and no games these days use 256 anyway...that's only if you were talking about gfx cards to begin with lol
Posted by: Shiranai_Baka
Yeah, I was talking about GFX cards, Sorry for the missing info.
So am I better off getting this? http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc....-128-185&depa=1 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-128-185&depa=1)
This
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc....-145-073&depa=1 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-145-073&depa=1)
Or this
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc....-123-130&depa=1 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-123-130&depa=1)
Tell me why if its not too long :P
Edit: Also, Would my mobo be able to support DDR2?
Posted by: Amarjit
It is not a requirement that your motherboard has support for DDR2 RAM, being utilised for a GPU - but if you were to use DDR2 in a DIMM, it would be an issue.
Posted by: SingaBoiy
Dont get DDR2, much worse latency then DDR. (slower) Get the first one. Only 6 more bucks for alot better card. 5900XT is alot better then those other Ultras.
Posted by: Shiranai_Baka
I see, But the core and effective speed is faster.... so does that make a difference at all? :blink:
Posted by: kaiweiler
I know, myself, I wouldn't get any XT card from nVidia, they are just dumbed down versions of the regular card, like the SE cards are for ATI
XT are awesome for Radeons, but terrible for nVidia cards
I'd either save some money up and get the regular 5600 or go 9800 Radeon if you can
Posted by: tesco
Originally posted by kaiweiler@19 April 2004 - 14:54
I know, myself, I wouldn't get any XT card from nVidia, they are just dumbed down versions of the regular card, like the SE cards are for ATI
XT are awesome for Radeons, but terrible for nVidia cards
I'd either save some money up and get the regular 5600 or go 9800 Radeon if you can
but the 5900xt, although its a scaled down version of the 5900, still gives better performance than the regular 5800 and lower, and better than the 5700ultra and lower.
what i recomend you do, is find a card which is around the maximum of your price range, then check out the pinned graphics card guide to see how it performs next to all the others youve found, and see whic would be best performance:money ratio.
Posted by: Shiranai_Baka
Originally posted by ROSSCO_2004@19 April 2004 - 20:33
but the 5900xt, although its a scaled down version of the 5900, still gives better performance than the regular 5800 and lower, and better than the 5700ultra and lower.
With that said, I should get the 5900XT right? (I can't afford anything over $210...)
Posted by: tesco
Originally posted by Shiranai_Baka+19 April 2004 - 15:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Shiranai_Baka @ 19 April 2004 - 15:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ROSSCO_2004@19 April 2004 - 20:33
but the 5900xt, although its a scaled down version of the 5900, still gives better performance than the regular 5800 and lower, and better than the 5700ultra and lower.
With that said, I should get the 5900XT right? (I can't afford anything over $210...) [/b][/quote]
well check out the other cards you can afford, and compare them on the pinned graphics card thread.
Posted by: Keikan
Originally posted by Shiranai_Baka+19 April 2004 - 13:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Shiranai_Baka @ 19 April 2004 - 13:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ROSSCO_2004@19 April 2004 - 20:33
but the 5900xt, although its a scaled down version of the 5900, still gives better performance than the regular 5800 and lower, and better than the 5700ultra and lower.
With that said, I should get the 5900XT right? (I can't afford anything over $210...) [/b][/quote]
5900xt is pretty good
Posted by: Shiranai_Baka
Originally posted by Keikan+21 April 2004 - 03:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Keikan @ 21 April 2004 - 03:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Shiranai_Baka@19 April 2004 - 13:58
<!--QuoteBegin-ROSSCO_2004@19 April 2004 - 20:33
but the 5900xt, although its a scaled down version of the 5900, still gives better performance than the regular 5800 and lower, and better than the 5700ultra and lower.
With that said, I should get the 5900XT right? (I can't afford anything over $210...)
5900xt is pretty good [/b][/quote]
Hahah a clear answer! :D Thank you!