Will The Amount Of Memory On A Graphics Card Make Much Difference In C4D?

[Per-Anders]

My PNY 6800GT 256 AGP that's currently for sale ($300 buyer pays shipping).

[wuensch]

I have a 256 MB Geforce FX 5600 card for some time and think that the memory is very needed, as my 3D scenes keep getting bigger.(The card is slow compared to todays state of the art).
I
Depends on how memory consuming your average 3d scene is, i guess.

I cant tell you about gaming as i dont play much,
But I would prefer a card with a lot of memory these days (isnt over 500MB available for consumer cards already?)

Olli

[jbo]

it depends entirely on how many textures you use and how big they are. in newer games, you probably won't be able to turn on some of the nice stuff like normal mapping and bump mapping etc... because you won't have room for it.

[imashination]

You're highly unlikely to see a difference in speed between 128 and 256 megs. Take the faster card, but if the price between 128 and 256 isnt much, then go for it.

[LucentDreams]

more liekly you will notice a difference not in speed bu capability when using higher res previes of materials in the editor. too many materials set too 1024 or 2048 and your looking for trouble with a lower memory card your sol.

[jackb602]

Here's a basic question. Does a card with more memory handle high polygon models more quickly? Or does it simply help with the display of textures? In architectural modeling, poly counts can get very high, so it would be worth it to me to have faster screen redraws.

Jack

[A.v.K.]

Here's a basic question. Does a card with more memory handle high polygon models more quickly? Or does it simply help with the display of textures? In architectural modeling, poly counts can get very high, so it would be worth it to me to have faster screen redraws.

Jack

As I understand it, the RAM on the card is only? used for the textures (and shader calculations while playing games), so it will not speed up polygon redraw.
Please correct me if I am wrong on this one.

[wuensch]

The RAM on the card should contain the textures & the geometrie for the line-output.

If you run out of memory with your OpenGl scene, Editor performance will slow down significantly.
I am no tech -geek, so i could be wrong.

[-/\-Scott-M-C4D-/\-]

It appears that what i have read ,is that the graphics memory is dependant on the screen resolution is and the frame rate at which things are updated are slower. The more memory the higher resolution and sharper the screen pixels are and therefor Antalising is not needed in games in resolutions such as 1200x1600 as 256MB is enough. 1280x1024 resolution is using 128MB is fine and therefor the speed will be much faster than the card with 256 as it has a slower clock speed.
In most cases ,running at 1200x1600 is not really nessesary in games but has the advantage in 3D Applications but unless you have a monitor that has a refresh rate of 85Hz at that resolution ,then any lower will eventually do your head in. I have a 21" Flat CRT with a 1200x1600 refresh of a max of 75hz. It's just about bearable for short periods but piece of mind it's 1280x1024 at 85hz.
Am using a Gforce FX 5700Le 256 on an Athlon 64 3500 with (2x512 Gig of Corsair) and using 1600x1200 there was little slow down on particular games except Doom 3 and Farcry which are very graphics card intensive.
The new generation of Gforce cards such as the Gforce 6600GT 128MB can make mince meat of Doom 3 and Farcry at slightly lower resolutions but struggle at 1200x1600.
What am interested in is whether the amout of polygons in a c4d scean is more dependant on the clock rate than the amount of memory on the card as i assume that c4d does not hold the graphics in the graphics card memory to much extent as system Ram which holds everything.
At the moment i cant even find a reliable retailer in the Uk that can even get one from, which is pathetic really. One retailer said ,"We don't have any instock and we can't rely on our suppliers to get them in so we can't give you a positive date until they turn up. If you want to order one then you will have your debit card debited now and you have to wait till they turn up,but we can't guarntee when i that will be" .I said that was crazy to which she agreed with me.
I wonder if there is any graphics card tests to see how the memory it contains influences the 3D apps.

[jbo]

In most cases ,running at 1200x1600 is not really nessesary in games but has the advantage in 3D Applications but unless you have a monitor that has a refresh rate of 85Hz at that resolution ,then any lower will eventually do your head in. I have a 21" Flat CRT with a 1200x1600 refresh of a max of 75hz. It's just about bearable for short periods but piece of mind it's 1280x1024 at 85hz.

If watching things in the wrong aspect ratio gives you piece of mind then yes 1280x1024 is great. that resolution is made for 17" and 19" lcds that have a 5*4 aspect ratio rather than the 4*3 ratio that your crt has. thus at that resolution, circles will appear as ovals and so on. you should use 1280*960. also, i don't think screen resolution affects video memory very much (it may a bit since i would suppose that the screen and back buffer(s) would use memory, but by far, the bulk of memory would be used by textures.) The speed of the card would affect frame rates at higher resolutions far more than the memory(if the memory even affects it at all).

[imashination]

Trust me, the amount of onboard memory will make no noticable difference to the speed, framerates, refresh rates, resolutions.... Memory is used for the screen image and screen buffers. With c4d it is also used to store opengl textures. If you have a 128meg card, you would have to really go for it if you wanted to fill its memory. Even when you do fill the memory, it uses system memory and to be honest it really isnt much slower than the gfx card memory.

The memory will have no effect on screen resolutions, frame rates, refresh rates, pixel sharpness....

The major thing to look out for is the GPU speed. If you have a choice of a 6600 with 256 megs or a 6800 with 128, take the faster card with less memory.

[alanmac]

Maybe they have something here, although there are plenty of other on line suppliers. They do at least show stock levels against each item.

http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/home.html

[-/\-Scott-M-C4D-/\-]

I tryed your resolutions and it simply squashed everything like an egg. I think i will stick to standard resolutions thanks as things are much much squarer.

[hundredthirtyseven]

You'll gain nothing with a 256 Mb card. You'd need about 7 2k*2k images to fill a 128 Mb card. Also, 256 Mb cards usually have slower rams than the 128 Mb ones. The amount of ram is almost nothing but marketing bullshit. A card with slower 256 Mb ram is cheaper to manufacture than a card with faster 128 Mb ram, but it's easier to sell because people think that more Ram means more speed. That's why sometimes even crap 3D cards come with 256 megs of ram, like the GF 5200 or the Ati 9550. Even doom3 doesen't need that much ram.

[jbo]

I tryed your resolutions and it simply squashed everything like an egg. I think i will stick to standard resolutions thanks as things are much much squarer.

uhh... that is a standard resoltion. your monitor just probably needs to be set for it since it's never displayed it before. but whatever, have fun watching things wrong. and if it's more square, it was probably because it was meant to be a rectangle.

[LucentDreams]

just a note I wasn't talking screen resolution but texture preview resoltuion in cinema materials

[imashination]

If watching things in the wrong aspect ratio gives you piece of mind then yes 1280x1024 is great. that resolution is made for 17" and 19" lcds that have a 5*4 aspect ratio rather than the 4*3 ratio that your crt has. thus at that resolution, circles will appear as ovals and so on. you should use 1280*960. also, i don't think screen resolution affects video memory very much (it may a bit since i would suppose that the screen and back buffer(s) would use memory, but by far, the bulk of memory would be used by textures.) The speed of the card would affect frame rates at higher resolutions far more than the memory(if the memory even affects it at all).

Most crts are 1280x960, but some are 1280x1024, so don't rule it out.

[-/\-Scott-M-C4D-/\-]

uhh... that is a standard resoltion. your monitor just probably needs to be set for it since it's never displayed it before. but whatever, have fun watching things wrong. and if it's more square, it was probably because it was meant to be a rectangle.


Thats what i did. I resized the monitor settings and it totally screwed things up. I did however notice that the refresh rate went up to 120Hz but 85Hz is adequate at the res of 1280x1024 .

Here is a screen photo of my monitor at 1600x1200 with 2 Racks side by side in the music application Reason 2.5.

http://sv2.3dbuzz.com/vbforum/attachment.php?s=&postid=755503

[jbo]

if 1600*1200 runs correctly on your monitor, then 1280*960 should as well since they are the SAME aspect ratio. There is NO way both 1600*1200 and 1280*1024 can look correct on your monitor. they are different aspect ratios. just do the math. 1600:1200 = 1280:960 = 4:3. 1280:1024 does not equal any of these ratios.

[jbo]

here: http://wadny.com/news/during/2004/7/27/1104/

[-/\-Scott-M-C4D-/\-]

The exact (Viewable) screen dimension of my 21" CRT monitor is 19.8 inches Diagonal.
The vertical dimension is 29.7cm.
The horizontal dimension is 40cm.

Tell me is that 5/4 .? Because according to his report which does not list a 21" CRT ,it says that you should use 1280x1024 or1600x1200 (His suggestion of 1600x1280 is not even a resolution that even exsist's which i assumed he ment 1600x1200).

I have been creating computer art for the last 13 years so am fairly sure that when i create a cube in cinema 4d i know it's square and not a rectangle man. All standard screen modes fit perfectly 800x600 and 1024x768 when switching resolutions.

My Monitor is shown to be 5/4 as listed by these resolutions .

Shown here http://www.gen-x-pc.com/lcd3.htm

Taken from the site above "VESA's SXGA standard is used to describe the next screen size up - 1280x1024. SXGA is notable in that its standard ratio is 5:4, while VGA, SVGA, XGA and UXGA are all the traditional 4:3 aspect ratio found on the majority of computer monitors. "

[imashination]

if 1600*1200 runs correctly on your monitor, then 1280*960 should as well since they are the SAME aspect ratio. There is NO way both 1600*1200 and 1280*1024 can look correct on your monitor. they are different aspect ratios. just do the math. 1600:1200 = 1280:960 = 4:3. 1280:1024 does not equal any of these ratios.

He's right you know.... If 1600x1200 works, then you will want to use 1280x960, not the taller 1280x1024 resolution.

[jbo]

The exact (Viewable) screen dimension of my 21" CRT monitor is 19.8 inches Diagonal.
The vertical dimension is 29.7cm.
The horizontal dimension is 40cm.

Tell me is that 5/4 .? Because according to his report which does not list a 21" CRT ,it says that you should use 1280x1024 or1600x1200 (His suggestion of 1600x1280 is not even a resolution that even exsist's which i assumed he ment 1600x1200).

the measurment you gave are 4:3 when you divide the horizontal by the vertical it comes much closer to 1.33 (it was 1.3468) than it does to 1.25. 1600x1280 is a resolution that exists, but your videocard probably can't do it. it's for 5:4 anyway, so you wouldn't want to use it. there is physically NO POSSIBLE WAY that the aspect is correct in both 1600*1200 and in 1280*1024(unless you have your monitor set so that there are black bars on the top and bottom of the screen in that resolution). you should use 1024*768, 1152*864, 1280*960, or 1600*1200. the second number should always be 3 quarters of the first number.

I have been creating computer art for the last 13 years so am fairly sure that when i create a cube in cinema 4d i know it's square and not a rectangle man.

quite simply, you are wrong.

go to 1280*1024. open photoshop. select a great big square that fills up as much of the screen as possible(hold the shift key with the marqee tool). measure it. (granted, it will probably never be perfect no matter what resolution you're in, but the others will be way closer)

[-/\-Scott-M-C4D-/\-]

The other mode which i you guys are suggesting simply stretches the screen upwards.
My screen is obviously not the same aspect ratio as yours.

[AndyMcc]

This has been very enlightening to me. I realize now that for the last 4 or 5 years I have been using 1280X1024 on 4:3 monitors. DOH!

A few months ago I switched to 2 19" LCD's at the same resolution and noticed that it looked much different but didn't realize why.

[jbo]

The other mode which i you guys are suggesting simply stretches the screen upwards.
My screen is obviously not the same aspect ratio as yours.

yes it is. you even measured it. you must be doing something wrong. can you take a picture of your screen at 1280*1024? just think about it man, what your suggesting defies doesn't make mathematical sense. computers use square pixels. thus the resolution you use should always have the same ratio as your screen. your screen has a 4:3 ratio. please, use my suggestion. measure a square in 1280*1024. it will not be square(unless you've resized the screen to have black bars on the top and bottom). I guarantee it. There is no way around this. there may be a very slim percentage of crt monitors that don't have a 4:3 aspect ratio, but you don't have one of them. you measured it yourself.

It doesn't make any sense that 1280*960 would stretch the screen upward. can't you just scale it back down with your monitor setting?

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.