320 or 640 or even the gtx?

inuyashafly

Distinguished
Nov 29, 2005
162
0
18,680
I have some what decided on a 8800 640 but what can the 640 do that the 320 cant? I have a x1800xt 512, I know in quake 4 if you set the graphics on xtreme or whatever it tells you you need 512. would the 8800 gts 320 not be able to handle it? like would you be stuck with medium texture sizes on 320 and hight on 640? and why did they use non standard memory sizes. 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024? it seems weird to me.


BTW, AMD is pissing me off, I like AMD and ATI better than Intel and nVidia, But now that AMD is also ATI and both their processors and gfx cards are lagging. I am building a new system and it will most likely be a core 2 duo and 8800. It hurts, deep down it hurts. :(
 

Valtiel

Distinguished
Feb 28, 2005
1,170
0
19,280
They didnt use standard memory because they had to go with what the memory interface would allow (320-bit for GTS and 384-bit for GTX) this only allows them to put memory in multiples (and maybe divisions?) of those sizes. Therefore 640Mb = 320 x 2 and 768Mb = 384 x 2. At least thats how I understand it.

BTW in Quake 4 it really doesn't need 512Mb to work correctly. On my 6800GS with 256Mb it could almost work with only a bit of slowdown. On an 8800GTS with 320mb it would work perfectly, no doubt about it.