Videocard specifications requests : Please add HD 4850 1024MB

[hayabusa1300]

Ticket ID: 195

 

Priority: Low

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/am5bp/

[knopflerbruce]

this video card doesn't offer noticeable performance increase over the 512Mb version.

 

It's easier to add it now, than to add it later and to manually move a number of scores. At some point we WILl se benchmarks that scales with the extra memory.

[knopflerbruce]

at what point will that be? we assume that benchmark like 3D01 and 3DVantage are quite a bit apart time wise; no mentionable scaling in performance with extra memory there;)

 

Sounds weird. I actually tried to look for some examples where memory scaling was important, but in alot of cases it seems as if the amount if memory doesn't matter at all - there is nearly no difference between 8800gt 256mb, 512mb and 1024mb for example. In other cases, such as 8800gts 320mb vs 640mb there is a pretty huge difference. This doesn't make any sense to me:p

 

This observation brings up a different question; why do you differentiate between 8800gt 256, 512 and 1024mb when the difference is close to nothing - and in this case you don't want to add a new card because the performance isn't different "enough"?

 

In MY opinion, there should be a separate ranking if there are important differences in the specifications - such as memory amount, number of shaders/pipelines/etc etc etc, memory bus and manufacturing process. Adding a category in this case will definately remove any thoughts about "unfairness" (if one of these 1024m cards gets to the #1 spot I BET the old #1 will feel a bit... robbed since he only has HALF the memory on his card). Sure, we see already that people have a hrd time posting in the correct category (I think I know the reason for that...), but that's easy to fix my moving the result when/if it's spotted.

[knopflerbruce]

if it is up to me, no difference between 256/512/1024 8800 GT; this might change in the future, same for CPUs Massman is the man to talk to.

 

I'll go nuts if you start merging CPU categories:D I hope that doesn't happen, though, too few categories will definately hurt HWBot, but to differentiate between some fairly similar performing GPUs/CPUs doesn't do much except freeing up 20-30 extra points for the benchers. Sure, you can look at some of the chips I've asked to be added during the past 2 years and say they perform the same, but they're not 100%the same - like my 3600+ Clawhammer is more or less a 3500+, but it's obviously an early revision that in NO way has the OC potential of the 3500+'es even if they perform the same at stock. And AMD DID label them differently, I bet there is a reason for the extra 100 performance points.

 

the reason you DO see a difference for the GTS 320/640 is because the GTS has a higher memory bandwidth bus than 8800 GT;

 

320-bit for the GTS, 256-bit for the GT.

 

I was thinking between 8800gts 320mb and 8800gts 640mb. Obviously there is a difference between 8800gt 512mb and any 8800gts;)

 

And since they like to play with memory size on these mid/low end cards for marketing; they don't actually do anything for performance because the bottleneck is elsewhere (mostly GPU).

 

I'll agree with the similar performance argument, but remember: if you don't add these cards you'll either get alot of requests - or people will post in some random category that looks fairly similar to their card. It's much easier to add separate ranks, really. It doesn't do any harm to do it, even if it takes a few moments to create them.

[knopflerbruce]

that was i wrote down?

 

the reason you DO see a difference for the GTS 320<>640 is because the GTS has a higher memory bandwidth bus than 8800 GT;

 

K, now I got it:p I thought you thought I meant the difference between 8800gt and 8800gts