1

Reply

My first post in anandtech becomes the 2nd post!

Reply

Look at the Farcry 1.3 Performance benchmark. The system memory causes the frame rate to fluctuate up to 20%!



Reply

Sorry if I missed this in this or the previous article, but how does the performance of the ATi 32MB Hypermemory card compare to the standard X300 with 128MB of onboard memory?

Reply

On the second page, the graphics should read "Percent FPS increase from 3:4:4:12 to 2:2:2:8" - assuming the performance is better with fast memory.
What processors did you use in the test? At that time, for Pentium4 only dual channel solutions are easy to grab, however, Athlon64 single channel (Socket 754) is pretty common and a much more sensible choice for a budget computer.

Reply

I agree with #5. That's my only grievance so far.

Reply

I think th ewhole concept of both turbocache and hypermemory is wrong. I mean if you have a system with a very cheap dedicated video card on it, that´s because two main reasons:

1- You don´t care much about 3d performance;
2- You don´t want the video subsystem wheighing on the ram memory.

Those reasons all but completely disaprove the use of a weak dedicated GPU that will use the main system memory.

Anyways, thanks for the article as it demonstrates that there are no such things as miracles. The bottom line is: If you´re going to build me a computer with the video subsystem in a dedicated video card, then (whatever the budget you have for it) keep it off my RAM.

Reply

[quote]
"Upon examination, the graphs reveal counterintuitive data."
[/quote]

Heh, it's particularly counterintuitive since the page 2 graph titles are backwards! See #5, above.

Reply

Yea I mean really: Percent FPS increase from 3:4:4:12 to 2:2:2:8. And then the least increase get puts a card at the top? WTF?!?! You gotta be kidding right. I believe it should be decrease.

Anyway, who cares, if you get a card like this, you are not gonna be playing games much, and even then I'd like my RAM to stay intact. If I want to share my system RAM with a GPU, I'll get one integrated in a chipset, thank you very much.

Just one more marketing BS scheme.

Reply

Damn it Calin, you already fixed the timings, so my copy/pasted statement is inconsistent with what's in the graph and what I was saying. I was referring to: Percent FPS **increase** from 2:2:2:8 to 3:4:4:12 line in the first graph on page 2 and the same thing is repeated in other graphs as well. You can either change the order of timings or "increase" to "decrease". Your pick, but I prefer decrease, because it's more logical that way.

Reply