The amount of memory on a card is probably the worst way to judge a cards performance.
There are 256Mb Radeon 9800SE's out there that get the smack laid on them by mid-range 128Mb Geforce 6600GT's.
...or...
There are also 512Mb Geforce 6800 Ultra's out there that get spanked extremely hard by a 256mb 7800GTX.
The GPU core and memory type make all the difference...not the amount of ram on it. The onboard memory is used to store textures. If the GPU is slow as mallasses...then no amount of ram is going to compensate for it. I hear too many stories of people purchasing their video cards based on memory size. Thats a big mistake. There are really no games out there yet that "really" need over 256mb (hence, the reason that the newest Nvidia cards STILL come with 256 instead of 512. Well, Im sure cost is a factor too...but the performance they offer with 256mb is simply jawdropping) Actually, I have a 128Mb 6600GT in my desktop that still runs very respectable framerates in todays games (Doom3 included). It will definitely best a x300 by a wide margin.
There are 256Mb Radeon 9800SE's out there that get the smack laid on them by mid-range 128Mb Geforce 6600GT's.
...or...
There are also 512Mb Geforce 6800 Ultra's out there that get spanked extremely hard by a 256mb 7800GTX.
The GPU core and memory type make all the difference...not the amount of ram on it. The onboard memory is used to store textures. If the GPU is slow as mallasses...then no amount of ram is going to compensate for it. I hear too many stories of people purchasing their video cards based on memory size. Thats a big mistake. There are really no games out there yet that "really" need over 256mb (hence, the reason that the newest Nvidia cards STILL come with 256 instead of 512. Well, Im sure cost is a factor too...but the performance they offer with 256mb is simply jawdropping) Actually, I have a 128Mb 6600GT in my desktop that still runs very respectable framerates in todays games (Doom3 included). It will definitely best a x300 by a wide margin.
