256MB vs. 512MB - The Real World Performance Difference

More local GPU memory is never a bad thing, but it must be taken advantage of to be worth its high cost.  That means we need games with larger textures and higher detail levels to truly require 512MB cards, but given that the majority of gamers still have 64MB or less on their graphics cards - it's going to be a while before 512MB is necessary.  Game developers are notorious for developing "for the masses" and thus, will spend very little time on that which can only be taken advantage of by owners of $500+ graphics cards, today's 512MB card included. 

ATI's own marketing literature claims that the X800 XL 512MB offers up to a 40% performance increase over the 256MB X800 XL...at 1600 x 1200, with 6X anti-aliasing and 16X anisotropic filtering enabled.  The problem is that at such high resolutions with AA/AF cranked up, the X800 XL doesn't have the fill rate or the memory bandwidth to offer reasonable frame rates in most games, which is why we find the X800 XL 512MB to be more of a mismatch than anything else.  A faster GPU with more memory bandwidth would be able to offer more real world benefit when coupled with 512MB of memory than the X800 XL. 

That being said, let's look at the performance breakdown for the X800 XL 256MB vs. X800 XL 512MB at 1600 x 1200 with 4X AA and 8X AF enabled - pretty aggressive settings for the X800 XL to begin with.

As you can see, there is less than a 1% performance advantage to having 512MB with the X800 XL, even at these aggressive settings in four of the five benchmarks.  In Half Life 2, the 512MB card actually offers a fairly reasonable 11% increase in performance, but in the other games, the performance advantage is nothing.  The other thing to keep in mind is that 1600x1200 with 4X AA and 8X AF enabled is not the sweet spot for the X800 XL. In Chronicles of Riddick, for example, the performance offered at these settings just isn't smooth at all. 

The Half Life 2 performance boost is particularly interesting, but that was the only game we encountered where the performance boost was not only reasonable, but the game was also fairly smooth in actual game play.  However, at the price of the X800 XL 512MB, you are better off just purchasing an X850 XT and getting better performance across the board, including Half Life 2.

Although the single graph on this page pretty much tells the story of the X800 XL 512MB, we've included performance results from both X800 XL cards, the X850 XT as well as NVIDIA's GeForce 6800GT and 6800 Ultra on the coming pages, if you want to see things in perspective.  We included the X850 XT and 6800 Ultra in the comparisons because it is priced similarly to the X800 XL 512MB's suggested retail price.

The Test

AMD Athlon 64 Configuration

Athlon 64 4000+ Socket-939 CPU
2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 EL Dual Channel DIMMs 2-2-2-10
ASUS nForce4 SLI Motherboard
ATI Catalyst 5.4 Drivers
NVIDIA 71.89 Drivers

Index Doom 3 Performance
Comments Locked

70 Comments

View All Comments

  • WT - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link

    #17,
    *drool* I'll one up you here and get a second 1GB 5200, run them in SLI, then I'll have 2GB of GPU bandwidth !!!
    That would kick, ermmm, no .. waitaminute ...

    MuhahahaAaAHAHAA !!!

    *sarcasm sensors malfunctioning*
  • fishbits - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link

    Maybe the sole purpose of the card is to get some honest benches under Doom 3 where ATI ties/beats a comparably-priced offering from Nvidia, and get as much PR out of it as possible. Sounds like there's a lot to sort out, but maybe this does happen under some tests in uncompressed mode.

    Anyway, the purpose wouldn't be to sell the particular card, as to squelch the "OMG, Nvidia pwns in Doom3!" so that those who buy a card based on one game/anecdote won't shy away from current ATI products. Fanboys for either company are a steady source of revenue, so it won't do to miss out on a new (vid chip/FPS) generation of them.

    Lot of speculation on my part, but the product is definitely befuddling otherwise.
  • Phantronius - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link

    Ahhh silly silly ATI, when will you learn, in Soviet Russia, GPU memory RAMS you!!
  • Sunbird - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link

    I'm wondering when the fx 5200 with 1GB memory (64bit memory interface of course) is coming out :p
  • ET - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link

    More data points: Beyond3D got the same results as Anandtech; DriverHeaven got an increase in speed, but only because its 256MB speed was much lower than the rest.
  • ET - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link

    #13, don't judge the waste of money on Doom3 results. There's obviously something fishy here.
  • ET - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link

    Right, #11. Shows I should read more carefully. That's really strange. T-Break also got the same results as Anandtech. Perhaps Carmack made a mistake and the modes are mislabeled? I mean, it's not as if he could test them. :)
  • bob661 - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link

    I'm really surprised at these 512MB results. I thought at least the Doom 3 benchmarks would be better. This is just a waste of money.
  • CrystalBay - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link

    I think nVidia's recently launched 6200/512MB is even a more peculiar release.
  • mbhame - Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - link

    Guys, Extremetech said they *originally* tried Ultra but the graph is based on High Quality mode.

    ...which further confuses things here. :(

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now