1gb vs 2gb video card RAM

[David (PassMark)]

so I think they do care about 2D

It is a very very low priority. There have been dozens of new device driver releases over the last few years. As far as I know none of them talk about 2D performance. Nothing about Direct2D, DirectWrite, etc.. It is always about how they got 5% more 3D performance from game X or game Y.

[oomiwan]

BTW Quadro is also nVidia product, so I think they do care about 2D

[oomiwan]

[QUOTE=David (PassMark)
I had a look at a lot of baselines and the GT630 isn't the best for 2D. The Quadro cards take the top 2 spots. After that is is a bit of a mix.[/QUOTE]

But Quadro is entirely different animal than GeForce, a lot powerfull and much pricey, Quadro 6000 with 384-bit and 6GB DDR5 could cost you almost $4000, no wonder they take the top spots, what makes me wonder is GT 630 is only $60, but it can easily knock out $500-700 GTX 680 five fold

[David (PassMark)]

The CPU actually has a large impact on the 2D performance, as not all 2D video operations are accelerated by the the video card.

The settings in Windows are also important. Turning off the eye candy can speed up the performance.

I had a look at a lot of baselines and the GT630 isn't the best for 2D. The Quadro cards take the top 2 spots. After that is is a bit of a mix.

It is definitely true that not all low end cards do well.

[oomiwan]

For 2D graphics the low end video cards actually do pretty well.

My old geforce gt 8600 and intel G45 also get about the same points as others in 2D-windows interface and 350's points in overall 2D performance, so I don't think all low end video cards do pretty well

[oomiwan]

For 2D graphics the low end video cards actually do pretty well.

nVidia and AMD don't really care about 2D performance.

Ehmm...like I said the video card with superb 2d graphics - windows interface is nVidia GeForce GT 630, and the one which gets the most points in overall 2D graphics performance is also nVidia Geforce GTX 680, so I think they do care about 2D performance

I just wondering why nVidia GT 630 is so superior in 2D - windows interface, while all the other five (Intel onboard, mid-end & high-end nVidia and AMD) get relatively pretty much even points

[David (PassMark)]

what about compairing 256 to 384 bit is that a marketing gimmick

The bus width of 64, 128, 192, 256 or 384 bits is one factor in determining the bandwidth between the GPU and the video memory.

If all else was equal then the wider 384 bus is better, as more data can be transferred in parallel.

But it is often the case that all else is not equal. The clock speed and type of RAM is as important as the width. Total bandwidth is the really important number.

How much Total bandwidth effects performance depends on the application in use. While more bandwidth is always a good thing, there is a point of diminishing returns.

If you had a choice between a card with 4GB of slow video RAM and 2GB of fast video RAM I would take the 2GB card.

[David (PassMark)]

From the baseline, Geforce GT 630 gets unbelievable points of 520 (5x higher than Radeon HD 6950 and Geforce GTX 680) for graphics 2D - windows interface

And in graphics 2D -simple vectors, intel hd graphics 4000 surpass the two heavyweights by wide margins, how can the two flyweights outpoint the two super heavyweights?

For 2D graphics the low end video cards actually do pretty well.

nVidia and AMD don't really care about 2D performance.

[hawks]

what about compairing 256 to 384 bit is that a marketing gimmick

[oomiwan]

Not when people are prepared to pay more and select one product over another based on perceived benefit.

From the baseline, Geforce GT 630 gets unbelievable points of 520 (5x higher than Radeon HD 6950 and Geforce GTX 680) for graphics 2D - windows interface

And in graphics 2D -simple vectors, intel hd graphics 4000 surpass the two heavyweights by wide margins, how can the two flyweights outpoint the two super heavyweights?

[David (PassMark)]

Not when people are prepared to pay more and select one product over another based on perceived benefit.

[oomiwan]

It is probably slower cheaper RAM as well.
They do it sell video cards to people who don't know any better. I think you are working on the false assumption that doing what is best for the consumer is more important than profit.

No, I realize that the religion and first priority of any manufacturer is to make as much profit as possible, but doesn't put more useless RAM bring more cost than more profit?

[David (PassMark)]

why do they do it....

It is probably slower cheaper RAM as well.
They do it sell video cards to people who don't know any better. I think you are working on the false assumption that doing what is best for the consumer is more important than profit.

[oomiwan]

A lot of it is just marketing to take advantage of people.
2GB sounds twice as good as 1GB to the uninformed consumer.

This might change in another few years with increasing monitor resolution and bigger more advanced games. So 2GB is slightly more future proof. But any video card you buy now will seem old in a few years regardless of if you have 1GB or 2GB of RAM.

If it is only a marketing gimmick to fool people, why do they do it so....exaggerately, pixelview has a very low end video card that boasts 4GB, is it only eyecandy? I think there must be someting in it, what's the use of putting useless gigantic extra bytes?

[Huma]

Got it. Thanks.