Meant to be Seen

As different graphics card perform differently in 3d as opposed to 2d I would love to start see reviews of how different graphics cards perform in 3d.

I am currently thinking of buying a new graphics card but as performance in 3d is so much different than 2d it makes it is more difficult to choose the graphics card I should get.

If I am not mistaken, memory is more important for 3d rendering but I would like to know what the actual difference is on performance. I would love to see a comparison of 3d performance between lets say a 512mb HD 4850 and a 1024mb HD 4850.

Neil,
Do you think this site will have the capacity to do these kind of reviews in the near future?

Yeah, thats always been a problem. Its because when games come out they are usually made to be just playable on a mid-range system (or not even playable at all like with Crysis). So at the time of release a high-end system will just barely max out a game. But in 3D you are rendering twice, it could drop as much as half the frames depending on the method. So that is the problem. Obviously different cards will perform differently but you usually want the best card you can get that will be compatible with your hardware. Or else just play slightly older games or drop the resolution, but there has to be a compromise somewhere. Can't just get an extra dimension for free!

get this and you might be safe for a while

http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/14/powe ... of-memory/

We are working on this, believe me!

Regards,
Neil