From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Radeon 9800 - 128 vs. 256 MB VRAM
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:23:30 -0500
To: [email protected]
I've used both and they perform for the most part identically, both in Windows
and on the Mac. The 9800 core wasn't really powerful enough yet to make use of
the extra 128M of VRAM. Save your money and get the 128M version. Truth be
told, on any machine you're going to be using a 9800 card in, the machine
itself will be more CPU bound than graphics bound anyway. Other than the last
generation of PCIe G5 towers, I'm not aware of any G series machines that can
even use uncompressed textures without choking anyway, I certainly know my dual
2.0 Ghz G5 can't. VRAM determines how big of "textures" the card can process
and display. Translation: Eye candy. The VRAM has nothing to do with how
fast the card is, except in newer generation cards that natively handle
uncompressed textures and other higher end features. The 9800 isn't one of
them. :-)
Pretty much my experience too on a MDD.
The 256mb version seems to run quite a bit hotter as well so if like me you
install it into a MDD then look to add some additional cooling unless you want
some cooked internal components.
Stewie
_________________________________________________________________
If It Exists, You'll Find it on SEEK. Australia's #1 job site
http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/157639755/direct/01/
--
You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for
those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
