PassMark Software
Global (Go to Australian site)

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1gb vs 2gb video card RAM

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1gb vs 2gb video card RAM

    Hi all, excuse me if this is the wrong place or could be found elsewhere.
    I am wondering about the memory variances of the 1, 1.5 and 2gb video cards. I am assuming the benchmarks are of the 1gb versions. What improvement should be expected from the extra memory?

    For example, the GTX 550 has a 2gb version. Would that be comparable to say a GTX 460? Or, is it the same benchmarks but with less stress on the card/cpu?

    Thanks
    Last edited by Huma; 01-16-2012, 04:06 AM.

  • #2
    The benchmark doesn't use a huge amount of video RAM. So performance in similar with 512MB - 2GB.

    Some games might benefit slightly from > 1GB RAM if you are running at very high video resolutions. (Beyond 1920x1080)

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks.

      So what is the purpose of the extra ram if it is only slightly useful at higher resolutions? I realize I asked based on the benchmarks, but I guess a real world practical answer, is what I was going for.

      Why add two or three times the ram, if it is only a slight increase in performance?

      Comment


      • #4
        A lot of it is just marketing to take advantage of people.
        2GB sounds twice as good as 1GB to the uninformed consumer.

        This might change in another few years with increasing monitor resolution and bigger more advanced games. So 2GB is slightly more future proof. But any video card you buy now will seem old in a few years regardless of if you have 1GB or 2GB of RAM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Got it. Thanks.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by David (PassMark) View Post
            A lot of it is just marketing to take advantage of people.
            2GB sounds twice as good as 1GB to the uninformed consumer.

            This might change in another few years with increasing monitor resolution and bigger more advanced games. So 2GB is slightly more future proof. But any video card you buy now will seem old in a few years regardless of if you have 1GB or 2GB of RAM.
            If it is only a marketing gimmick to fool people, why do they do it so....exaggerately, pixelview has a very low end video card that boasts 4GB, is it only eyecandy? I think there must be someting in it, what's the use of putting useless gigantic extra bytes?

            Comment


            • #7
              why do they do it....
              It is probably slower cheaper RAM as well.
              They do it sell video cards to people who don't know any better. I think you are working on the false assumption that doing what is best for the consumer is more important than profit.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by David (PassMark) View Post
                It is probably slower cheaper RAM as well.
                They do it sell video cards to people who don't know any better. I think you are working on the false assumption that doing what is best for the consumer is more important than profit.
                No, I realize that the religion and first priority of any manufacturer is to make as much profit as possible, but doesn't put more useless RAM bring more cost than more profit?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Not when people are prepared to pay more and select one product over another based on perceived benefit.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by David (PassMark) View Post
                    Not when people are prepared to pay more and select one product over another based on perceived benefit.
                    From the baseline, Geforce GT 630 gets unbelievable points of 520 (5x higher than Radeon HD 6950 and Geforce GTX 680) for graphics 2D - windows interface

                    And in graphics 2D -simple vectors, intel hd graphics 4000 surpass the two heavyweights by wide margins, how can the two flyweights outpoint the two super heavyweights?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      what about compairing 256 to 384 bit is that a marketing gimmick

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by oomiwan View Post
                        From the baseline, Geforce GT 630 gets unbelievable points of 520 (5x higher than Radeon HD 6950 and Geforce GTX 680) for graphics 2D - windows interface

                        And in graphics 2D -simple vectors, intel hd graphics 4000 surpass the two heavyweights by wide margins, how can the two flyweights outpoint the two super heavyweights?

                        For 2D graphics the low end video cards actually do pretty well.

                        nVidia and AMD don't really care about 2D performance.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by hawks View Post
                          what about compairing 256 to 384 bit is that a marketing gimmick

                          The bus width of 64, 128, 192, 256 or 384 bits is one factor in determining the bandwidth between the GPU and the video memory.

                          If all else was equal then the wider 384 bus is better, as more data can be transferred in parallel.

                          But it is often the case that all else is not equal. The clock speed and type of RAM is as important as the width. Total bandwidth is the really important number.

                          How much Total bandwidth effects performance depends on the application in use. While more bandwidth is always a good thing, there is a point of diminishing returns.

                          If you had a choice between a card with 4GB of slow video RAM and 2GB of fast video RAM I would take the 2GB card.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by David (PassMark) View Post
                            For 2D graphics the low end video cards actually do pretty well.

                            nVidia and AMD don't really care about 2D performance.
                            Ehmm...like I said the video card with superb 2d graphics - windows interface is nVidia GeForce GT 630, and the one which gets the most points in overall 2D graphics performance is also nVidia Geforce GTX 680, so I think they do care about 2D performance

                            I just wondering why nVidia GT 630 is so superior in 2D - windows interface, while all the other five (Intel onboard, mid-end & high-end nVidia and AMD) get relatively pretty much even points

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by David (PassMark) View Post
                              For 2D graphics the low end video cards actually do pretty well.
                              My old geforce gt 8600 and intel G45 also get about the same points as others in 2D-windows interface and 350's points in overall 2D performance, so I don't think all low end video cards do pretty well

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X