Wait... so you mean to tell me graphics card manufacturers are actually producing graphics cards that make use of graphical memory?

There's a new one.

If you think about it, 128MB, let alone 256MB, is a very finite cache. However, the GPU doesn't even make use of a fraction of it. Graphics card memory is strictly a gimmick. No one is able tell the difference in framerate between a card with 128MB and a card with 256MB, if all other factors are identical. The difference is just as negligible to games as it is to the human eye.

If you could see the low level data that occurs doing games, you'd see exactly where textures go- from the hard drive to the system memory, where they sit until they're needed. There's no reason for textures or models to be cached in graphical memory because, albeit faster, it's more finite.

The only effect graphical memory has appears on benchmarks, but the memory isn't being filled with useful data- it's just being cached with garbage that fits, so that memory bandwidth can be tested and factored into the score.


So why don't Nvidia and ATI level with people and say they're developing this cache just to kick the crap out of each other in 3DMark?

I'll bet you anything the R&D at both companies just sits around trying to top each other's scores.

Youre being a bit silly now....think bout it

a 256 mb card will only be better than the 128 when the 128 is overloaded with whatever it has to do.....256 mb version of 128mb cards are only noticable when you want them to either run stuff at super high res or high AA and AF or when they need to use big textures.....

3dmark shows difference in scores cuz they just overload your hardware with tons of s**t so having tons of memory gives a huge advantage in benchmarks like that and youll prob get the same benefit in games 3 years from now

Come to think bout it my last budget card had less memory bandwidth than my system ram and it was able to run hl2 acceptably.....turbo cache would mean just using system ram when it actually needs to usev the stuff (Im fed up with seeing fx 5200s with 256 mb of ram....) if u ask me its just a better alternative to a 32 mb card thats mainly used for 2d purposes and then it overloads when your kid wants to play a 3d game he bought without reading the label on the side

another gimmick yes , just like pci-e, performance is very bad too. i get better performance from my 1.6ghz pentium 9600tx 128mb agp

Well, I wouldn't compare it to PCIe.

PCI Express is a theoretic concept, like AGP4x and 8x, that with good hardware and software development could someday be used effectively.


This, however, is just a way for manufacturers to cut costs... unless of course they start putting out premium graphics cards with the same feature. It might be good to allow the user to enable or disable it, though.