Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

128 vs 256

Mar 7, 2005 7:18AM PST

I AM IN THE PROCESS OF BUYING A NEW INSPIRON 9300
WITH A 128 VIDEO CARD BUT IT HAS THE OPTION OF GETTING A 256 CARD. I AM AN ARCHITECT AND USE A LOT OF COMPUTER MODELING PROGRAMS AND VISUAL GRAPHICS PROGRAMS. IS IT WORTH THE EXTRA MONEY, OR JUST WORTH THE PERFORMANCE, TO GET THE HIGHER MB GRAPHICS CARD?

128MB ATIs? Mobility Radeon? X300 [add $49 or $2/month1]
VS
256MB NVIDA

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
reply
Mar 7, 2005 9:03PM PST

Dear crown06,

The 128 is a high performance card, and should be enough for architectural design. The 256 card is one of the best personal video cards you can get right now... Mostly used for high-end 3D video-gaming. I'm not sure exactly what you need, but the 128 should be more than enough for graphic designing - yet 3D animation rendering WOULD be faster on the 256, but there is no animation in architectural design.

Hope this helps,
-AInTeL

- Collapse -
animating architecture
Mar 7, 2005 9:43PM PST

hey AlnTel,
thanks for the response. but the reality is that the reason that i ask this question is that there is a lot of animation in architectural design? we use most of the programs that video and game producers use. animations programs ranging from maya, 3d max, bryce, from z, permier, director, flash, vector works, and the traditonal autocad, to name a few. we don't neceesarily play games we gengerally invent and render the games, rather realities, as mucha as any good animaters do? its acually a vital part of a my profession.

so, the 256 is faster for 3d animation?
i have run animations on dual processors before, would the 256 make all that much diffence on time? i tought the viedo graphic card were just for the resolution of video display? so the computer would not chuge when it is rendering a movie for example and just show poor resolution. i have a freind that has a 256 but he really can't tell the diffence except when he watches lord of the rings....

so the main question is; how would it really be faster?


thanks,
crown06

- Collapse -
reply
Mar 8, 2005 2:52AM PST

Dear Crown06,

If you're not really playing the games in real-time, but taking the time to simply render it, then I don't believe there will be a significant difference with the extra money. I myself have a 128, and do SOME 3d animation, as well as play games such as DOOM3 and HL2, and they work perfectly. For 3d design animation, the 128 should easily suffice you for the next few years - it's all a matter of HOW MUCH rendering and power you need, but the 128 will last you at least the next three years, probably 5+

Hope this helps,
-AInTeL

- Collapse -
cheers mate
Mar 8, 2005 5:36AM PST

hey Aln Tel,
thanks for responding again. this reafirms what i was thinking. by the way, what type of animation are you doing? what programs are you using? so, how computer proficient are u?

ciao,
crown06

- Collapse -
reply
Mar 8, 2005 7:54AM PST

Dear crown06,

I have done some 3d studio, some corel 3d, plenty of flash and swift 3d. I've also tried out smaller 3d amination programs such as anim8or.

I understand the concept of 3d graphics and animation well, but not expert in programs other than macromedia studio.

Playing and designing on this computer has caused me no problems whatsoever, and the graphics card has been nothing but exceptional thus far. (My configuration is accessible by clicking on my name after my message).

Thanks,
-AInTeL

- Collapse -
processor speed?
Mar 8, 2005 1:18PM PST

Memory isn't the only thing that matters. Have you compared the processing speeds? Include cpu clock? processing capacity per cycle? The amount of memory is only one of the things you should look at.

Also, that "Mobility Radeon" doesn't sound so good. You can't cut power level and consumption without making the processor slower at the same time. As far as I can tell, all kinds of mobile processors work slower then their mormal counterparts...

- Collapse -
Hi Crown and AlnTel
Mar 10, 2005 6:55AM PST

Pardon me for butting in, but I have to go along with Dagger.

Although I am more familiar with the gaming of video cards the Nvidia 6800 is a much higher performance card than the X300 and more in line with what Aln has. Even though we are talking about Laptop cards, the X300 in the new PCI-Express x16 video card lineup is at the bottom, whereas the NVidia 6800 is up there at the top, especially in the XT and Ultra versions.

My suggestion is to go with the 6800 even though laptops are not considered high tech gaming machines. Video cards performance are compared with each other in how well they come out in gaming which carries over to developer's work who may not do not gaming but also do animation and video editing.