Cheap 512 Graphics cards?

[VcBoy87]

I don't believe it, below are two links showing 512 cards being sold for cheap cheap. :hotbounce

Anyone know if theres a downside on these babies? (for example, they used cheap ram or something?)

And will they really run games like F.E.A.R. on the highest settings?

http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=VX700-512P

http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=V6600-512PI

 

[peterdiva]

They're using DDR memory,where the higher end cards use DDR3.Also they're the basic version of each card.They won't run F.E.A.R on anything but low settings.The 512mb of memory is a complete waste,256mb would probably be too much as well.

 

[swker98]

They're using DDR memory,where the higher end cards use DDR3.Also they're the basic version of each card.They won't run F.E.A.R on anything but low settings.The 512mb of memory is a complete waste,256mb would probably be too much as well.

i agree he coulnt have said it any better


if you post a budgewt and systme we can help you find a video card that will suite your needs

 

[cyrax]

definately agree with the above post.Even if you can load the textures and vertices into memory, the gpu will be too slow to compute it. Thus a backlog will occur for textures waiting to be loaded.

 

[JimL]

for that price range i would recommend the 6800gs. the amount of memory isn't that important as long as it's at least 128 or 256mb

for under 200 bones a 6800gs (or just a plain 6800) can't be beat

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814130258

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814127179

 

[Arcanum]

I have to agree with peterdiva and cyrax.
The fact that you have 512MB of available memory on a card
of that price range means nothing - you will just throw money away.

512MB means nothing, as the GPU itself is too slow and will not
efficiently utilize it (GPU for that price range). There are only a
few games today where you are going to see an advantage going
from 256 to 512MB, but thats only when they're running at
highest details, and when running them at highest details, they'll still
chugg like hell, cause the GPU (in that price range) cant process that much vertices/do pixel shading/texturing per clock.

So my recommendation is 256MB of memory, the current sweetspot, as going down to 128MB you're definately going to take a hit that is too high.

As the X700 is 144$, I'm guessing you can go to 150$.
So I'm recommending X800GTO, they currently have 3 or 4 at newegg for under 150$, it'll blow 6600GT away.

If you can go up to 200$, its 6800 GS, all the way.

My sincere recommendation - get one of the 6800 GS from newegg.
That thing packs quite a punch for its price. I know its ~50$ more than the X700 you linked to, but it blows that sucker away, plain and simple. It even has SM 3.0, so you'll be more future proof.
Try to get that 50$ extra, and get the GS!
You'll never look back on that X700!

 

[flavin]

games dont even take of 256mb yet right?

 

[Inconel]

256 is important in games and so is 512, lots of benchmarks will tell you that. Im not completely educated on the topic but BF2 runs well with a 256mb card, has something to do with being able to load up all game files and not have the packaged away...hmm not very informative of me at all, but its the basics. Wouldnt suggest buying a card under 256 these days.

 

[Arcanum]

Well, the 512MB he's after are useless on a card of that price - the GPUs for that price dont have a lot of VS/PS to begin with, and their clocks arent sky high.
Whats the use of these extra 256MB, when the only time you will be using them are - high resolutions, AA, AF, triple buffering - and only if you combine these WITH highest settings ingame - then you'll need more than 256MB to store all of the needed textures/data onto the videocard.

So, if he goes off and buys an e.g. X700 with 512MB - opens up COD2 - puts all the textures on maximum - and the game starts chugging like hell... The card has enough memory for sure, but it can't process that amount of textures/data/VS and PS operations per clock - so these 512MB become useless.

Only high end cards like 7800 series, X1800 will utilize 512MB efficiently...
Better go with a faster GPU, then having 512MB for that price range.

If he can buy 6800 GS (256MB), I think he wont regret it... Cause all the cards in that price range with 512MB will be slower than 6800GS in 95% of the time.

 

[Candyman]

Cheap 512 parts

I can't find the link, but I think the 512 helps in Battlefileld 2, but not many other games yet. ATI showed parts with 512 are 30% faster with large textures when compared to the same class of board. The 6600 and x700 are 8 texture pipe parts and don't have the power a 16, 20, or 24 pipe card has. A 6800Gt or x800 with 256 ram will outperform a 6600 or x700 with 512 hands down because the GPU chips are almost twice a powerful.

 

[jaroddog]

From what I've heard, if you're wanting to play a game like bf2, what you are really gonna need to get high settings is 2 GB of system RAM (wow, I only have 512). I'd imagine a good GPU and extra system memory are just what the doctor ordered for bf2, then again, I've never played that game.

 

[darkstuarez]

When i first played bf2, with 512mb ram, and a geforce 5500 pci, it lagged, but still playable, i wouldn't think you'd need 2gigs of ram, maybe just a good video card.

 

[jaroddog]

Seems that way to me too, but from what I've heard, even if you've got a top dollar vid card, you're still gonna need massive amounts of system RAM to play that game at maximum settings. Go figure.

 

[truflip]

u need 2gb ram if ur gonna be playing on a 64 player map/server and want good framerates.

btw for those noobs who think MB on video cards is everything.. please dont =] cheap looks attractive for a 512.. but the catch is (like mentioned) the GPUs dont stack up simple as that. my 128megger can kick that x700 with 512 :knock: back to the dump