Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

32 or 64 mb geforce 2 gts?

  • 26-06-2001 10:39am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,752 ✭✭✭


    is there a big difference in performance? i am thinking of getting geforce 2 gts 32mb or 64mb...


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,162 ✭✭✭_CreeD_


    Hmm, just want to qualify it a little (from my experience obviously). The extra mem is useless in MOST cases. But if you have a game with very high res textures and no texture-compression the 64mb card is faster.
    Eg. Sacrfice, you can only use the highest quality textures on a 64mb card.

    Also while 1600x1200 might sound like overkill (But it is pretty...), remember it's the equivalent of only 800x600 at 2xFsaa. But I suppose by the time you're heading towards the horsepower to run that quickly enough you won't have a choice on mem size (eg. Pro and Ultra)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,752 ✭✭✭yankinlk


    how does 79 dollars for this card sound? (new)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,487 ✭✭✭Gerry


    There is no performance difference until a stupidly high res like 1600 * 1200, so its not worth paying for the extra 32 megs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,601 ✭✭✭Kali


    79 for the gts? sounds bloody excellent to me.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,752 ✭✭✭yankinlk


    nice one. u da man gerry.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,487 ✭✭✭Gerry


    I wasn't aware that there was a noticeable loss of quality with texture compression. Also, the resolution and detail you run games with is mainly dictated by the core and memory speed. FSAA is fairly pointless, as it completely kills fps in most games, on a gts. $79 sounds like an excellent price, where is that?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,752 ✭✭✭yankinlk


    http://www.ubid.com US auction site, well worth checking out.

    the catch:
    i had to give an american address...my folks place. Im gonna either pick them up later this summer or have them sent over. Before I go back Ill post here if anyones interested in buying something...like maybe geforce 3's?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭Kix


    Sweeeet.....

    I can feel my credit card starting to jiggle in my back pocket.

    "DOWN BOY!"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,162 ✭✭✭_CreeD_


    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gerry:
    FSAA is fairly pointless, as it completely kills fps in most games, on a gts. </font>

    Not on older games (and I play TFC mainly, so I'm presuming all those CS folks are in the same boat). I used to run it (FSAAx2) on my Geforce-1 DDR and the FPS at 1024x768@32 hovered between ~55 and 72 (max_fps). With a GTS pro I get ~140 fps, same settings.

    It's one of those things that once you get used to it you'll hate playing without it.



    [This message has been edited by _CreeD_ (edited 27-06-2001).]


Advertisement