How big of a difference does the 128bit and 256bit memory make?
How big of a difference does the 128bit and 256bit memory make?
in GFX cards, I would go with 128, search the forums, it's been reasoned why about a million times
Q6600 @ 3.42Ghz | Gigabyte EP35-DS3R | EVGA 8800GT 721/1802/2006 w/ Accelero S1 | 4gb Crucial DDR2 @ 760mhz | 750gb Hitachi 7k1000 | Corsair 520HX | 2 x Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" | Windows 7 Ultimate
he said BITS not megabytes...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
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...
he said BITS not megabytes...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
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]
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
Q6600 @ 3.42Ghz | Gigabyte EP35-DS3R | EVGA 8800GT 721/1802/2006 w/ Accelero S1 | 4gb Crucial DDR2 @ 760mhz | 750gb Hitachi 7k1000 | Corsair 520HX | 2 x Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" | Windows 7 Ultimate
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
This
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc....-145-073&depa=1
Or this
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc....-123-130&depa=1
Tell me why if its not too long
Edit: Also, Would my mobo be able to support DDR2?
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.
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.
I see, But the core and effective speed is faster.... so does that make a difference at all?
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
Q6600 @ 3.42Ghz | Gigabyte EP35-DS3R | EVGA 8800GT 721/1802/2006 w/ Accelero S1 | 4gb Crucial DDR2 @ 760mhz | 750gb Hitachi 7k1000 | Corsair 520HX | 2 x Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" | Windows 7 Ultimate
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.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
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.
Bookmarks