I honestly don't see the point of this.

But instead of a rant, I'll just bring up the topic of "Where the heck is the 1024MB edition?".

I can tell you the point. I have only a 1280x1024 max res in my LCD like manymany others and more mem does no good. Crysis might be the only game so far, that actually needs 512MB in GPU. 256MB is good for at least 1280x1024 4xAA 8xAF, haven't used more in any game.

edit: but that price is no good, Club3D 8800GT 512MB card is already 210€ or that 147£ here.

i think this is more for oem builders but with memory prices at record lows the savings would be quite low.

WeerI honestly don't see the point of this.

But instead of a rant, I'll just bring up the topic of "Where the heck is the 1024MB edition?".

The 1024MB edition will never come. NVidia is releasing another card based on the G92 that has 128 SPs that will come in 512MB and 1024MB varieties.

256MB is more than enough for people that use lower resolutions, like ~80% of gamers. Hell, my 7900GTs with 256MB more than handle 1600x1050.

jocksteeluki think this is more for oem builders but with memory prices at record lows the savings would be quite low.

You are propably right that with current momery prices the price difference will be very low. I was already thinking of jumping the 512MB bandwagon. No like year ago when 512MB models were 50€ more, this might be something like 10€ cheaper, but we'll see.

IMO 256MB cards are useless these days beyond midrange systems. Due to ever growing poor code optimisation combined with increasing texture quality (meaning a larger graphics frame buffer is needed for the textures) 512MB video memory is a minimum these days.

KetxxxIMO 256MB cards are useless these days beyond midrange systems. Due to ever growing poor code optimisation combined with increasing texture quality (meaning a larger graphics frame buffer is needed for the textures) 512MB video memory is a minimum these days.

have to agree with you buddy ... take for example CMD ..

Agreed ketxxx.

Sad isnt it? Whats worse is the coders THINK their skills are l33t because their getting 120FPS in the machines they are testing with.. they forget their using the likes of dual 2GB Quadros or FireGL equivs. I say hand them graphics cards consumers pick up and make them code with them in their systems. That'll clear a large chunk of the sloppy coding up.

Games could turn out to be crapper tho'

I guess thats why high end games run like crap on most systems,running with normal mortal cards.

The price of them high end quadro/firegl cards makes me shiver.

KetxxxIMO 256MB cards are useless these days beyond midrange systems. Due to ever growing poor code optimisation combined with increasing texture quality (meaning a larger graphics frame buffer is needed for the textures) 512MB video memory is a minimum these days.

Seeing as how I have 256MB cards and game just fine on them using High-Max settings @1600x1050, I have to disagree with you. Though with the ever increasing texture sizes and complexity of games 256MB won't last me much longer at that resolution. However, it will do just fine at the most common resolutions, which is still 1280x1024 and lower.

KetxxxSad isnt it? Whats worse is the coders THINK their skills are l33t because their getting 120FPS the the machines they are testing with.. they forget their using the likes of dual 2GB Quadros or FireGL equivs. I say hand them graphics cards consumers pick up and make them code with them in their systems. That'll clear a large chunk of the sloppy coding up.

Making games look better requires more power, I know it is hard to understand that. However, it is possible to TURN DOWN SOME SETTINGS to get better framerates, also something I know people have a hard time understanding.

but whom are they maiking the games for, themselves or teh consumer?

KetxxxSad isnt it? Whats worse is the coders THINK their skills are l33t because their getting 120FPS in the machines they are testing with.. they forget their using the likes of dual 2GB Quadros or FireGL equivs. I say hand them graphics cards consumers pick up and make them code with them in their systems. That'll clear a large chunk of the sloppy coding up.

The problem with this paragraph Ket, is that they don't tend to use Quadros or FireGL machines for much, and certainly not testing. Those PC's would be bad at running the games, they're not designed for it. Take into account also that all FireGL and Quadro cards are the same cards we get, but with sometimes more (slower) memory and a bios tweak.

v-zeroThe problem with this paragraph Ket, is that they don't tend to use Quadros or FireGL machines for much, and certainly not testing. Those PC's would be bad at running the games, they're not designed for it. Take into account also that all FireGL and Quadro cards are the same cards we get, but with sometimes more (slower) memory and a bios tweak.

Not testing I meant development, couldnt think of the right word at the time :p

newtekie1Making games look better requires more power, I know it is hard to understand that. However, it is possible to TURN DOWN SOME SETTINGS to get better framerates, also something I know people have a hard time understanding.

I fully understand where your coming from. but tbh most of us who can actually build a system from scratch also build it with a few good reasons in mind & its not because we can or because its cheaper. & most of the people that build their own systems are more then like medium-hardcore level gamers who know exactly what they want & require from a system

after building 3 of my own systems from scratch if I wasnt able to run a game on full settings id be pretty pissed as I dont want to play a game that constantly looks like runny eggs.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF Anti Aliasing ETC... id run everything full texture & sacrifice some AA if it wasnt running fast enough. I still have the rare occasion where my frames on COD2 would totally kill my system even with AA etc off but hey im still running it with all the bangs n wallops.

being quite a heavy gamer. turning down graphics to me is like george bush without braincells....you either have a prayer or you dont exist at all.

Nvidia today released a new 8800GTS which totally creamed the GT series cards....


www.custompc.co.uk/news/601563/new-8800-gts-with-112-stream-processors-beats-8800-gt.html

Err, why bother paying for this when for £129.09 plus postage (£5) you can get the Club 3D 512MB from CBC?! Check my thread in hot deals :rockout:

Hmm, my fears confirmed?

I even mentioned this unlocked 112sp G80 GTS version in the other GT thread.


So...then this probably still won't topple the GTX, but will topple the GT, yet that means a revised GTX is coming?

I wonder how much those Canadian blokes got payed on the side, not to include the current GTS or GTX in their testing.... ugh..Crysis demo to boot :)