Jubasdk
#0
Kan det betale sig, at give 300kr, for et 1gb ekstra ram på et grafikkort ?
Kortet er HELT identisk. Det findes bare med 2 og 3gb.
What to do ?
Kortet er HELT identisk. Det findes bare med 2 og 3gb.
What to do ?
#1
Hvilket kort er det ? - Snakker vi low eller high end ?
#2
#4
Umiddelbart er flere Ram = højere opløsning...
#5
jeg skal jo kun køre i max 1600x1050, sån ca
#6
Så kan du roligt bare nøjes med 2 gb.
Har hørt noget om, at GTX660 kører bedre med 3GB istedet for 2GB pga. den bus-bredde på 192 bit. Men jeg ved ikk' om det er rigtigt 🙂
#9
ca 1620kr PP for 3gb modellen her http://www.caseking.de/shop/ca...
eller http://www.caseking.de/shop/ca... til ca 1670kr
men der er mere EVGA GF660 her http://www.caseking.de/shop/ca...
Svaret blev redigeret 1 gang, sidst af EasterKanin d. 22-01-2013 06:35:53.
eller http://www.caseking.de/shop/ca... til ca 1670kr
men der er mere EVGA GF660 her http://www.caseking.de/shop/ca...
Svaret blev redigeret 1 gang, sidst af EasterKanin d. 22-01-2013 06:35:53.
#10
Om GTX 660Ti har 2GB eller 3GB er lige meget, 192bit bussen er den samme og "problemet" med 192bit bussen er den samme, nemlig at der kun er max bundbredde op til 1.5GB på kortet de resterende 512MB på 2GB eller 1.5GB på 3GB kortene er mere end halveret på båndbredden og derfor giver 3GB meget lidt mening på en 192bit rambus.
Det har hele tiden været kritikpunktet på GTX660/660Ti og 192bit bussen. Op til 1.5GB da køres med fuld rambåndbredde over de 1.5GB da halveres de på den resterende teksturmængde, da der kun er een 64bit controller til at håndtere den "overskydende" rammængde.
Lidt om 2GB vs 3GB GTX 660Ti.
http://www.tomshardware.com/re...
"Other benchmarks we've run using different games show that many titles are better able to mask the GeForce GTX 660 Ti's narrower memory bus. Sometimes, a lack of bandwidth is less noticeable, if it is at all. So, it could be a problem or not, depending on the situation.
We did show, however, that the card is very much held back by its 192-bit aggregate interface, even if you're using simple anti-aliasing and normal texture detail. The negative effects of this aren't apparent if you're pushing GPU-intensive settings like tessellation able to shift the burden onto the GPU. Giving the GeForce GTX 660 Ti another gigabyte of memory, totaling 3 GB, is pointless, though. Even games that are modified to support huge textures demonstrate worse performance with 3 GB compared to 2 GB. Higher clock rates help make up for the bandwidth deficiency somewhat, but they don't cure the card's underlying problem. A GeForce GTX 660 Ti with 1.5 GB for a bit less money would probably be a good idea.
So, where does all of this leave Nvidia's GeForce GTX 660 Ti with its 192-bit memory interface? Definitely behind AMD's Radeon HD 7950, which is just a better-balanced offering all around. Depending on how much the game you're running stresses the GPU, and if anti-aliasing is enabled, even the less expensive Radeon HD 7870 could be a better choice. This is mostly the case for poorly-optimized console ports lacking DirectX 11 support.
...
This card isn't a good choice for less demanding titles, but it does make a strong showing when a lot of GPU performance and, relatively speaking, not a lot of memory bandwidth are needed. But this exposes the card's big issue. Nvidia's GeForce GTX 660 Ti isn't really a premium card."
Svaret blev redigeret 3 gange, sidst af Gripen90 d. 22-01-2013 10:31:57.
Det har hele tiden været kritikpunktet på GTX660/660Ti og 192bit bussen. Op til 1.5GB da køres med fuld rambåndbredde over de 1.5GB da halveres de på den resterende teksturmængde, da der kun er een 64bit controller til at håndtere den "overskydende" rammængde.
Lidt om 2GB vs 3GB GTX 660Ti.
http://www.tomshardware.com/re...
"Other benchmarks we've run using different games show that many titles are better able to mask the GeForce GTX 660 Ti's narrower memory bus. Sometimes, a lack of bandwidth is less noticeable, if it is at all. So, it could be a problem or not, depending on the situation.
We did show, however, that the card is very much held back by its 192-bit aggregate interface, even if you're using simple anti-aliasing and normal texture detail. The negative effects of this aren't apparent if you're pushing GPU-intensive settings like tessellation able to shift the burden onto the GPU. Giving the GeForce GTX 660 Ti another gigabyte of memory, totaling 3 GB, is pointless, though. Even games that are modified to support huge textures demonstrate worse performance with 3 GB compared to 2 GB. Higher clock rates help make up for the bandwidth deficiency somewhat, but they don't cure the card's underlying problem. A GeForce GTX 660 Ti with 1.5 GB for a bit less money would probably be a good idea.
So, where does all of this leave Nvidia's GeForce GTX 660 Ti with its 192-bit memory interface? Definitely behind AMD's Radeon HD 7950, which is just a better-balanced offering all around. Depending on how much the game you're running stresses the GPU, and if anti-aliasing is enabled, even the less expensive Radeon HD 7870 could be a better choice. This is mostly the case for poorly-optimized console ports lacking DirectX 11 support.
...
This card isn't a good choice for less demanding titles, but it does make a strong showing when a lot of GPU performance and, relatively speaking, not a lot of memory bandwidth are needed. But this exposes the card's big issue. Nvidia's GeForce GTX 660 Ti isn't really a premium card."
Svaret blev redigeret 3 gange, sidst af Gripen90 d. 22-01-2013 10:31:57.
#11
#10, det er da helt bagvendt af hvad man forventer.
Giv mere, få mindre.
Giv mere, få mindre.
#12
#10, det er da helt bagvendt af hvad man forventer.
Giv mere, få mindre.
Ja jeg tror det er for at presse citronen mest muligt. Mere ram må betyde betyde bedre ydelse i højere opløsning i den generelle gamers ører. Umiddelbart er det også rigtigt, men når der ligger sådan en flaskehals af en rambit forbindelse bag, så virker det bare ikke.
#13
Jeg bestilte et 3gb kort.
jeg fik det til samme penge, da 2gb ikke var pp lager;)
jeg fik det til samme penge, da 2gb ikke var pp lager;)
#14
#8: Ifølge linket i #10 så lader de 3GB til faktisk et svække kortet lidt iforhold til 2GB... det er jo set før hvis resten af strukturen ikke følger med rammængden.
#15
#14 Tjaah, lader til det faktisk var stik modsat af, hvad jeg sagde 😛 Men var heller ikk' sikker.