GeForce GTX 285 Gets 2 GB: Gigabyte's GV-N285OC-2GI

[Crashman]

Today’s most powerful graphics processor, Nvidia's GeForce GTX 285, still struggles with some games at the highest resolution and quality settings. Gigabyte answers the question: "Will more RAM help?" with its custom 2 GB GeForce GTX 285.

GeForce GTX 285 Gets 2 GB: Gigabyte's GV-N285OC-2GI : Read more

 

[twisted politiks]

ive had EVGA's GTX 285 for about two months now, nothing new in the memory department

 

[rambo117]

wow... that was quite pointless, i was really expecting a good article but it was the same numbers basically, why not just have a single page with the average gains with 2gb vs 1gb (which was completely nonexistent anyways)

 

[astrodudepsu]

Well, all I can say is good try. Not some of your best work, but worth exploring nonetheless.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]astrodudepsu[/nom]Well, all I can say is good try. Not some of your best work, but worth exploring nonetheless.[/citation]

Tom's Hardware was hoping to find more 2560x1600 scenarios where the 2GB advantage would play out. When very few advantages were found, Tom's did the honest thing and published the numbers anyway.

I think you can take a lot from this article. I just spoke to a guy who asked "2GB or water cooling?" when looking at cards of the same price. He has a powerful water cooling loop, so the answer was easy.

 

[one-shot]

I think it is a great article. Too often people approach me thinking a larger frame buffer means extra performance. Actually, just recently a co-worker wanted to get a GTX 285 with 2GB of VRAM. Great article, keep it up!

 

[SpadeM]

Just a quick question: Since the GTX285 is a high range card, those the same "1GB is enough" rule apply to mid range/low end cards?

PS: I'm thinking slower GPU might benefit from more memory

 

[astrodudepsu]

[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]Tom's Hardware was hoping to find more 2560x1600 scenarios where the 2GB advantage would play out. When very few advantages were found, Tom's did the honest thing and published the numbers anyway.[/citation]

Which is why I said it was worth exploring. I realize you wouldn't do all this work and NOT publish your results, as mundane as they may be.

 

[rambo117]

it was quite informative and worth exploring like astrodude said. just wish that it was a little more 'exciting'.. idk, maybe an sli 2gb vs 1gb will prove to be possibley more interesting.

 

[Hellbound]

If a card is going to cost $350-$400, and perform as much as %50 less than the car that costs $500....get the $500 card. You are already spending an insane amount for a card, might as well go all the way. As for me, I'm waiting for the DX11 cards to come out.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]rambo117[/nom]it was quite informative and worth exploring like astrodude said. just wish that it was a little more 'exciting'.. idk, maybe an sli 2gb vs 1gb will prove to be possibley more interesting.[/citation]

Three-way would have been best, but there's just not enough samples to go around.

 

[Guest]

Nice article, pity you didn't have two 2-gig cards for SLI and GTA4 ready to be tested - AFAIK, that is THE framebuffer muncher no.1 these days.

 

[enewmen]

I expect future titles to fully utilize 2gb. So this may be a future-proof card. However, I don't see such titles coming out this year. By then it will be DX11.

 

[TheFace]

Nobody seems to believe that this might be a driver issue?

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]TheFace[/nom]Nobody seems to believe that this might be a driver issue?[/citation]

Same card means same driver, regardless of RAM.
[citation][nom]SpadeM[/nom]Just a quick question: Since the GTX285 is a high range card, those the same "1GB is enough" rule apply to mid range/low end cards?PS: I'm thinking slower GPU might benefit from more memory[/citation]

Are you the guy who bought that 256MB MX440 because it had more memory than the 128MB Ti 4200? Just kidding, but the high-end card is the one that can use the highest detail levels, which requires a greater frame buffer.

 

[chovav]

hey, how about GTAIV? they say that the maximal viewing distance of a 1GB card is 32%, and MSI claims for its 2GB card that it's possible to get 100% viewing distance.
Is there any possibility to test this? this could actually be the only game that will use this amount of memory..

 

[sublifer]

[citation][nom]rambo117[/nom]wow... that was quite pointless, i was really expecting a good article but it was the same numbers basically, why not just have a single page with the average gains with 2gb vs 1gb (which was completely nonexistent anyways)[/citation]
Yup. And the reason we never see any gains is because the driver is written with the stock frame buffer size and the OS/games don't know how to take advantage of the extra VRAM. All the cards with higher than stock amounts of VRAM are wastes of money.

 

[Horizonz5]

[citation][nom]sublifer[/nom]Yup. And the reason we never see any gains is because the driver is written with the stock frame buffer size and the OS/games don't know how to take advantage of the extra VRAM. All the cards with higher than stock amounts of VRAM are wastes of money.[/citation]

well first the technology is introduced into the market and then companies like Diamond Multimedia will utilize its full potential. I'm sure GTX 295 owners will not be interested in "upgrading". Perhaps Crysis 2 will see too in seeing the 285 will not be money spent poorly.

 

[freak77power]

Where is Grand Theft Auto IV Test here?

 

[Vatharian]

Where's the bottleneck? I'd like to see little more testing: What's the difference in SLI: two pairs of 285 with 1 gig ram and 2 gigs. However I reckon 2x2 gig setup would show difference in 1920x1080++ with 8/16x AA enabled... I do own a 8800 SLI setup, but at 1080p any FSAA is unplayable T_T

 

[scook9]

The only scenario I can see where this would be beneficial is SLI like mentioned in the conclusion. This is where you really get a bottleneck of frame buffer as you will have multiple GPU's competing for the same memory.

What I am curious about, could you buy a 1 GB card and a 2 GB card SLI them and have the primary set as the 2 GB so that the full 2 GB gets used between the 2 GPUs? Or would you still have to pay for 2 2GB cards

 

[nukemaster]

[citation][nom]scook9[/nom]The only scenario I can see where this would be beneficial is SLI like mentioned in the conclusion. This is where you really get a bottleneck of frame buffer as you will have multiple GPU's competing for the same memory.What I am curious about, could you buy a 1 GB card and a 2 GB card SLI them and have the primary set as the 2 GB so that the full 2 GB gets used between the 2 GPUs? Or would you still have to pay for 2 2GB cards[/citation]
Yes(you need 2 cards with 2GB), Both cards have to have a copy of all data, so, the lowest card will dictate how much memory can be used.

 

[Guest]

Scook9, it was mentioned in the article that the GTX295 which is SLI with 1.8GB VRAM that is evenly splits among the two cores. It is just two cards in one package using one PCIe slot. One card cannot use the VRAM of another. IDK about mixing a 1GB and 2GB card in SLI, maybe someone else could answer.

What I'm curious about it what type of program would actually benefit from all the extra memory. The article only tests games but what about video encoding or Photoshop CS4?

 

[hellwig]

YAWN @ Nvidia. Over a year since the G200 was first released, and vendors are so bored they're just slapping worthless memory onto the cards. NVidia hasn't created a new chip since the GTX280/260 came out. They shurnk the die, but that one G200 chip architecture is the only one they created since the GeForce 8k line. Their marketing department works harder renaming their old crap than the system designers do.

To me, this is indicative of a major problem with the architecture. I think Nvidia is having problems creating a new architecture based off the G200. Kinda like Intel and the P4, Nvidia is going to have to start from scratch if they want their next chip to really shine.

 

[hellwig]

[citation][nom]EJ257[/nom]What I'm curious about it what type of program would actually benefit from all the extra memory. The article only tests games but what about video encoding or Photoshop CS4?[/citation]
EJ257: one thing that becomes apparent every time Tom's reviews the Quadro or FireGL line is that 90% of the performance comes from driver improvement, and not hardware. If we see a Quadro w/ 2GB (I think we already have), then apps like Photoshop and 3DSMax will benefit. However, you'll see no benefit running Nvidia's GeForce drivers, regardless of the card. You need those Quadro drivers first and foremost.