RADEON 8500 128Mb?????
- Thread starter MEANGUNS!
- Start date
L
Lachp30
Guest
128mb of ram for a video card was thought up by marketing. You will probably never actually use more than 64mb, but for emulation, I would go for a 9000 prehpas.
Doomulation
?????????????????????????
The 128 mb cards will probably only most likely be needed in the future.
SoberAnalyst
Banned
8500 much better than 9000
hello. i run the RADEON 7500 64MB ... i wish my videocard had 128MB because it does make a huge difference. with more ram, you're able to load more qucker, because of the ram fragmentation issue ... RAM fragmentation is a much larger performance factor than hard drive fragmentation, believe it or not. also, Doom III is said to use 80MB of videocard ram on average. the RADEON 8500 will also soon be renamed as the RADEON 9500 with the same hardware make-up ... why is this? ... it has to do with the fact that the RADEON 9000 is called 9000 because it's DirectX 9 compatible but it's making people think that the videocard is faster than the 8500 ... so they've decided to make the 8500 a larger number because the processor is much more powerful. if you get the LE, the processor is not as powerful but still much more powerful than the 9000. believe me ... 8500LE 128MB is your best bet!!! ... it's what i plan on upgrading to.
hello. i run the RADEON 7500 64MB ... i wish my videocard had 128MB because it does make a huge difference. with more ram, you're able to load more qucker, because of the ram fragmentation issue ... RAM fragmentation is a much larger performance factor than hard drive fragmentation, believe it or not. also, Doom III is said to use 80MB of videocard ram on average. the RADEON 8500 will also soon be renamed as the RADEON 9500 with the same hardware make-up ... why is this? ... it has to do with the fact that the RADEON 9000 is called 9000 because it's DirectX 9 compatible but it's making people think that the videocard is faster than the 8500 ... so they've decided to make the 8500 a larger number because the processor is much more powerful. if you get the LE, the processor is not as powerful but still much more powerful than the 9000. believe me ... 8500LE 128MB is your best bet!!! ... it's what i plan on upgrading to.
SoberAnalyst
Banned
Re: Re: 8500 much better than 9000
i write calls for libraries which migrate DirectX functions to a .NET platform ... i'm not some kid who spends all day posting on forums. just because i'm new, don't think you know anything over me. you're just a forum junky ... i'm new, it's the weekend and i'm bored ... so i decided to post something ... anyway, i was wrong about the 8500 being turned into the 9500 ... it will be the 9100 under the same framework though. the 9500 will be slightly better. that is all i was wrong about ... i wish i could do that rolling eyes thing, but i'm not a forum junky. i'm a .NET programmer.
Slougi said:Could you stop talking out of your ass? There is nothing at all true in this whole blurb
i write calls for libraries which migrate DirectX functions to a .NET platform ... i'm not some kid who spends all day posting on forums. just because i'm new, don't think you know anything over me. you're just a forum junky ... i'm new, it's the weekend and i'm bored ... so i decided to post something ... anyway, i was wrong about the 8500 being turned into the 9500 ... it will be the 9100 under the same framework though. the 9500 will be slightly better. that is all i was wrong about ... i wish i could do that rolling eyes thing, but i'm not a forum junky. i'm a .NET programmer.
Trotterwatch
New member
Doesn't change the fact that your entire post beforehand was complete rubbish
A forum junky? Where'd that one come from?
As you were wrong about everything else - 128mb on a Radeon8500 makes little difference, and not the seisomoligical difference you were implying.
And you're claim to be a .NET programmer to quote Shania Twain {pukes at the thought}
SoberAnalyst
Banned
.NET programmer proof
you say i'm not a .NET programmer. you can contact me, my name is Tyler. i own www.webworkfair.com which offers .NET web services and intranet development. you can contact me directly through the Contact page. you can check the registration of the company and that it is under my name and confirm that i'm outsourced by microsoft.
if you would like, i could find benchmarks on the 64mb vs. 128mb but i wouldn't want to embarrass 2 gurus (based on the number of postings you guys have done) anymore.
you say i'm not a .NET programmer. you can contact me, my name is Tyler. i own www.webworkfair.com which offers .NET web services and intranet development. you can contact me directly through the Contact page. you can check the registration of the company and that it is under my name and confirm that i'm outsourced by microsoft.
if you would like, i could find benchmarks on the 64mb vs. 128mb but i wouldn't want to embarrass 2 gurus (based on the number of postings you guys have done) anymore.
Re: 8500 much better than 9000
Ati already has a r9500 line, they will not suddenly call a r200 by a r300 name
Up till here your post was acceptable, and somewhat factual.SoberAnalyst said:
ROFLMAO
Ati already has a r9500 line, they will not suddenly call a r200 by a r300 name
Erm, sorry, r9000 is a dx 8.1 card.
Not as powerful but still more powerful? Please explain what you mean.
Noone in their right mind would get a r9000 now. A r9500 or r9500 pro maybe. Especially if you are a programmer. :saint:
SoberAnalyst
Banned
my mistakes explained
most of the calls i do can be done with a very old card. i can't test my framework on my computer and have my computer act as all cards anyway. yes ... i do believe the 9000 is DX9 compatible and i already said the 8500 would be remained to 9100 ... i corrected myself. my main point anyway was that 8500 128 would preform better than 64mb and i can currectly looking for proof online.
most of the calls i do can be done with a very old card. i can't test my framework on my computer and have my computer act as all cards anyway. yes ... i do believe the 9000 is DX9 compatible and i already said the 8500 would be remained to 9100 ... i corrected myself. my main point anyway was that 8500 128 would preform better than 64mb and i can currectly looking for proof online.
Re: Re: Re: 8500 much better than 9000
I might be a forum junkie, whatever that is, but I am not known to be harsh to newbies. It is just that you had no single fact right in your first post. The grammar and spelling suggested that the writer is a ~13 year old. If I offended you I am sorry, it just pisses me off when people post stuff like that. And yes, it is true that there are rumours that the r8500 will be called r9100. However I don't think it is feasible for ati. They developed the rv250 to be cost productive, which it is. With the upcoming rv350 and r350 release they will have a very strong product lineup, with or without the r200.SoberAnalyst said:
SoberAnalyst
Banned
Re: Re: Re: Re: 8500 much better than 9000
go to www.ati.com ... look at their cards. the 8500 isn't even listed in their driver support anymore.
ok, i looked and 9100 isn't there anymore and 8500 is ... there was a time a month ago that the regular 8500 was no longer listed there and i couldn't figure out why but now it's back.
Slougi said:
go to www.ati.com ... look at their cards. the 8500 isn't even listed in their driver support anymore.
ok, i looked and 9100 isn't there anymore and 8500 is ... there was a time a month ago that the regular 8500 was no longer listed there and i couldn't figure out why but now it's back.
Re: my mistakes explained
It is basically a reworked r8500, with modifications to the shaders and pipelines. It is actually slower in most areas, which is why ati might call the r8500 r9100 in the future. However, both these cards are dx8.1 level cards, and have the same features.
The r9000 is not dx9 compatibleSoberAnalyst said:
It is basically a reworked r8500, with modifications to the shaders and pipelines. It is actually slower in most areas, which is why ati might call the r8500 r9100 in the future. However, both these cards are dx8.1 level cards, and have the same features.SoberAnalyst
Banned
i'm all mixed up
ok, quit beating a dead horse ... i'm dead wrong most of the time ... but i'm damn sure that 128mb is better than the 64mb for loading and faster. actually, it might only matter if you have low system RAM ... which is not the case for this guy. anyway, i'll find the benchmarks and prove someone wrong (maybe me again)
ok, quit beating a dead horse ... i'm dead wrong most of the time ... but i'm damn sure that 128mb is better than the 64mb for loading and faster. actually, it might only matter if you have low system RAM ... which is not the case for this guy. anyway, i'll find the benchmarks and prove someone wrong (maybe me again)
SoberAnalyst
Banned
some good benchmarks
here are some good benchmarks ... they show that the 8500LE pretty much destroys any 9000 (and i'm talking about the LE!!) ... as for the 9000 with 64mb vs. 128mb ... most of the time, the 64mb is a hair better (surprised) ... but when the RAM is the bottleneck as for some games down below the page, in one instance, the 128mb performed 50% better (not surprised). but come on, in all fairness ... Quake 3? ... when does Quake 3 ever use more than 1MB of RAM (being sarcastic). now as for GTA 3 and Need for Speed hot pursuit 2 ... my RADEON 7500 works just fine ... great ... until i'm playing the game for 10 minutes ... then the game starts to get buggy. why is this? .. is the GPU slowing down? ... no, it's because the constant deleting and moving of the RAM on my videocard is becoming fragmented. the only way to defragment it is to shut the game down and start over again ... a problem i don't have, when i plug in my friend's 8500 128mb ... it's also never a problem with Quake 3 or other games that don't use lots of RAM. as for Doom III ... it wouldn't run at all, because i run 256MB of system ram and the ram starts running over my videocard onto my system where it doesn't have much and so it start paging the ram to my hard drive ... plugged in and tried 512 into my system and to no surprise Doom III was running much better. for these newer games coming out, they are using more GPU and more RAM ... but turning down the settings doesn't really turn down the RAM too much. we can't expect to run all these games on full resolution and all the fixings anyway ... we gotta turn down the settings ... but what happens when you need more RAM? ... then you're S*** out of luck. find a benchmark for Doom III running a 64mb card vs a 128mb card ... i dare you ... you will see i'm right.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache...deon+8500+64mb+128mb+benchmark&hl=en&ie=UTF-8[/url]
here are some good benchmarks ... they show that the 8500LE pretty much destroys any 9000 (and i'm talking about the LE!!) ... as for the 9000 with 64mb vs. 128mb ... most of the time, the 64mb is a hair better (surprised) ... but when the RAM is the bottleneck as for some games down below the page, in one instance, the 128mb performed 50% better (not surprised). but come on, in all fairness ... Quake 3? ... when does Quake 3 ever use more than 1MB of RAM (being sarcastic). now as for GTA 3 and Need for Speed hot pursuit 2 ... my RADEON 7500 works just fine ... great ... until i'm playing the game for 10 minutes ... then the game starts to get buggy. why is this? .. is the GPU slowing down? ... no, it's because the constant deleting and moving of the RAM on my videocard is becoming fragmented. the only way to defragment it is to shut the game down and start over again ... a problem i don't have, when i plug in my friend's 8500 128mb ... it's also never a problem with Quake 3 or other games that don't use lots of RAM. as for Doom III ... it wouldn't run at all, because i run 256MB of system ram and the ram starts running over my videocard onto my system where it doesn't have much and so it start paging the ram to my hard drive ... plugged in and tried 512 into my system and to no surprise Doom III was running much better. for these newer games coming out, they are using more GPU and more RAM ... but turning down the settings doesn't really turn down the RAM too much. we can't expect to run all these games on full resolution and all the fixings anyway ... we gotta turn down the settings ... but what happens when you need more RAM? ... then you're S*** out of luck. find a benchmark for Doom III running a 64mb card vs a 128mb card ... i dare you ... you will see i'm right.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache...deon+8500+64mb+128mb+benchmark&hl=en&ie=UTF-8[/url]
SoberAnalyst
Banned
Doom 3 uses 80mb proof
http://gs-real03.zdnet.com/gshw/stories/flat/0,12880,2874779-2,00.html
well? ... it does say Doom III will use 80mb of RAM from a reliable source. if you know anything about RAM fragmentation, you will know that if you're using 60MB of ram then 4 extra MB on a 64MB card doesn't give you much room to work with ... you will start using the GPU to organize and clean up and make room for the new stuff being loaded. pages get larger, some get smaller ... if you're using 60MB on 64MB video card you can't think of it as a bottle of water almost full ... it's more like puzzle pieces taking up more than 90% of the space on the table surface ... peices start falling on the floor (system RAM) because it's hard to organize them to find large enough space to fit another peice on ... if the floor is full of peices, the peices stay in the box (hard drive) which is harder for the CPU (brain) to do it's work to figure everything out. so with that being said ... i would say anything over 50MB on a 64MB card would start showing the RAM as being the bottleneck no matter what ... so what about 80MB on a 64MB card? ... dream on ... you better have lots of system ram and a fast system bus to not notice more than a truck load of performance issues.
http://gs-real03.zdnet.com/gshw/stories/flat/0,12880,2874779-2,00.html
well? ... it does say Doom III will use 80mb of RAM from a reliable source. if you know anything about RAM fragmentation, you will know that if you're using 60MB of ram then 4 extra MB on a 64MB card doesn't give you much room to work with ... you will start using the GPU to organize and clean up and make room for the new stuff being loaded. pages get larger, some get smaller ... if you're using 60MB on 64MB video card you can't think of it as a bottle of water almost full ... it's more like puzzle pieces taking up more than 90% of the space on the table surface ... peices start falling on the floor (system RAM) because it's hard to organize them to find large enough space to fit another peice on ... if the floor is full of peices, the peices stay in the box (hard drive) which is harder for the CPU (brain) to do it's work to figure everything out. so with that being said ... i would say anything over 50MB on a 64MB card would start showing the RAM as being the bottleneck no matter what ... so what about 80MB on a 64MB card? ... dream on ... you better have lots of system ram and a fast system bus to not notice more than a truck load of performance issues.
Trotterwatch
New member
By the time D3 arrives then something such as the Radeon 8500 will be extremely low end anyways- none of the newer breed of cards will come with less than 128mb I'm sure.
L
Lachp30
Guest
Doomulation said:
Probably...in the future though. A 64 mb card will become the req before any 128mb card is needed.
SoberAnalyst
Banned
256MB out right?
doesn't the 9700 come with the option to upgrade to 256mb? ... this is what i heard.
doesn't the 9700 come with the option to upgrade to 256mb? ... this is what i heard.