. /../GDDR3 Versus GDDR2/ 1
the bestest ever
written by Medeivalstargazer on Jun 15, 2008 18:31
So, I have some money set aside, and am FINALLY going to upgrade my aging ATI Radeon x600. I was looking at two cards:




The first one has 256mb GDDR3 memory, while the second one has 512mb GDDR2 memory. I'm not sure if the 3 versus the 2 will make a huge difference. Especially considering the DDR2 card has 512mbs, where as the other one only has 256mbs. They both have a core clock of 600mhz, and 32 stream processes. Both say their memory is 128bit.

Hmm, I just looked at the memory clock. DDR3 says it's 2016mhz, DDR2 says it's 800mhz.

Which card would be the better choice? Ignore price x]


I've been googling it and it seems like the 256 of gddr3 is better...
└> last changed by Medeivalstargazer on June 15, 2008 at 19:41
hello there
written by Duskesko on Jun 15, 2008 20:59
Either way, you're getting a Nvidia Geforce.


Okay maybe not always. just stay away from the Verto made Geforce 5200. It runs the quake 4 demo like a dream but it cant handle Halo or even simpler tasks like rendering Flyff correctly.

I love my old Geforce 4 TI 4200 though. It's still chuggin like mad and running awesome! I especially like that fact that Nvidia had unified drivers before ATI could even get its drivers straight. Plus the driver software gives you handy control over TV out and such.

ATI is great now, I'm sure. But, I still remember trying to simply get the latest drivers for an ATI all in Wonder. The capture device stopped working and I had to manually delete all ATI drivers from the system before downgrading.
faces or a vase?
written by Tom on Jun 15, 2008 22:45
It really comes down to whether you're going to be using quite high resolutions - if you're not going to go above 1280x1024 or whatever, I'd recommend the 256 MB card.

Actually, what about this one?
It's a little more expensive than yours, but it should be considerably faster due to the higher core clock.
the bestest ever
written by Medeivalstargazer on Jun 15, 2008 22:57
My monitor doesn't support any resolutions higher than 1280x1024. So no, I won't be going above that.

Also, the card you linked has a slower memory clock than the 256mb gddr3 one that I linked. I'm not sure if that will make much of a difference. And is the extra 80hz of core clock worth the extra 7 dollars? May sound trivial, I suppose, but I do have to pay the full price initially, and then wait for the rebate. So that's about 17 extra dollars... I suppose it isn't a huge deal, just wondering if I'm going to see very much of a performance increase anyways x]
written by Cryoburner on Jun 17, 2008 04:57
Tom said:
It really comes down to whether you're going to be using quite high resolutions - if you're not going to go above 1280x1024 or whatever, I'd recommend the 256 MB card.
Actually, any common resolution shouldn't require much memory for rendering a scene, unless you're using very high levels of antialiasing. 1280x1024 requires 5 Megs of video memory for a single screen buffer, which works out to 10 Megs when double buffered. With antialiasing enabled, additional memory is used to render the scene at a larger size before scaling it down. A typical setting of 4x AA should require another 20 Megs of video memory, but that's still only around 30 Megs total to display the scene. There are also some other buffers used in games, but nothing that large, so a 256 MB card is generally only using 10 to 20% of its memory for rendering a scene. Performance at high resolutions tends to rely more on the speed of a card's GPU and memory than the amount of memory available.

The bulk of video memory is used to store things like textures, lightmaps and detail models, which are resolution independant, for the most part. With a 256 MB card, you might not be able to keep textures set to their maximum detail levels in newer games. A 512 MB card should have plenty of headroom for pretty much any modern game's textures at their highest quality levels. However, the speed of the memory would likely make more of an impact on performance. Ideally, you'd get a card with 512 Megs of GDDR3, but you'd be paying more for it, too. : )

Of the two cards you linked to, the 256MB Asus looks like it might be a better card for the money. With free shipping, the final price works out about the same, and the pre-rebate price is significantly less. It's also by Asus, which is a more recognizable company, though neither of those cards have many reviews at Newegg yet. Unfortuneately, that particular card is out of stock at the moment, so you might have to wait until later in the week to order one, at which point the sale prices might be different. : ) The card Tom linked to also looks good, and has a lot of positive reviews, though I'm not sure it's worth the extra money to trade a higher memory clock for a higher core clock.

One thing to make sure of is that your motherboard has a PCI Express slot rather than AGP, since all three of those cards are in the PCI-E format.
faces or a vase?
written by Tom on Jun 17, 2008 05:03
I'm just going by benchmarks I looked at when I was getting my video card (XFX Geforce 8800 GTS Superclocked 320MB) - the reviews said that the difference between the 320 MB and 640 MB versions were only appreciable at high resolutions. Either it said, or I assumed, that this was because it needed to store more/higher resolution textures.

Also, I think the core clock matters more than the memory clock, again just from benchmark results, but I don't know that much about the hardware.
the bestest ever
written by Medeivalstargazer on Jun 23, 2008 17:18
I ended up ordering this one:
If anyone cares =] Ordered yesterday, should be here by Wednesday (Thursday at the latest).
reading this thread
no members are reading this thread
. /../GDDR3 Versus GDDR2/ 1
26918, 13 queries, 0.063 s.this frame is part of the AnyNowhere network