Author Topic: PhysX (Read 1600 times)

DAwG · « **Reply #30 on:** July 23, 2008, 04:15:49 pm »

yep, but lets say you were looking at budget PCs, and you had an 8600 with 512MB ddr2 priced similarly with an 8600 with 256MB ddr3, now which would be better?

Gad · « **Reply #31 on:** July 23, 2008, 05:31:15 pm »

The one with GDDR3 would be superior. The speed at which the memory would be clocked at is much higher with GDDR3 than with DDR2 (1400 MHz vs 800 MHz effective).

Memory bandwidth is much more important to performance than the actual amount of memory. Based on the specs of those cards they both have a 128 bit memory bus. The card with GDDR3 would have a memory bandwidth of 22.4 GB/sec while the card with DDR2 would have a memory bandwidth of 12.8 GB/sec.

You are always better off buying a card with faster memory. Manufacturers like to dupe people into thinking 512mb is better than 256mb. What they are really doing is selling you 512mb of cheap, under performing memory. Not too mention the smaller memory buses on less expensive cards could not even take advantage of 512mb of good memory.

DAwG · « **Reply #32 on:** July 23, 2008, 06:21:40 pm »

yup that's what i thot

anomaly · « **Reply #33 on:** July 24, 2008, 08:03:47 am »

Quote from: Gadwall on July 23, 2008, 05:31:15 pm

You are always better off buying a card with faster memory. Manufacturers like to dupe people into thinking 512mb is better than 256mb. What they are really doing is selling you 512mb of cheap, under performing memory. Not too mention the smaller memory buses on less expensive cards could not even take advantage of 512mb of good memory.

i fell for that when i bought my 1600 pro a while back. it had 512. but i don't even think it mattered. when i popped my dudes 7900 (256) in it was like night and day @ 1280x1024.

DAwG · « **Reply #34 on:** July 24, 2008, 11:32:40 am »

I didn't think the 1600s were much of a match for the 7900s either way

anomaly · « **Reply #35 on:** July 24, 2008, 11:50:47 am »

yea, im pretty sure the 7600 was more of the 1600's competition.

to be honest i don't think a 1600 with 512 would do much better than a 1600 with 256 but i was just making a real world exmp.

Gad · « **Reply #36 on:** July 24, 2008, 03:09:41 pm »

Yeah a 1600 with 512mb would have DDR2 and the 1600 with 256mb would be GDDR3 so the 512mb version would actually be significantly slower than the 256mb version. There might have been version with 256mb of DDR2 but I bet there is not much difference between those and the 512mb DDR2 version because the memory would still have the same clock speed even though there is twice as much.

I still play on a 1650 pro. 256mb of GDDR3 though. It is probably almost twice as fast as a 1600 with 512mb of DDR2. It does really well with TF2 but I don't play at a super high resolution.

anomaly · « **Reply #37 on:** July 25, 2008, 07:36:15 am »

have you tried to OC it at all?

i took the heatsink off mine to realize that the surface where the chip made contact with the heatsink was VERY rough. i wet sanded it and seen a 7c drop in temps with no other mods. then i installed ATI tool adjusted the fan speed and got over 100Mhz OC on the core stable! i hit about 150Mhz OC but dropped it down 50Mhz for safety. then i bumped the RAM up 50Mhz but didn't want to go too high cuz the RAM was not in contact with the heatsink.

anyway in Quake4 i went from 15-35 FPS to 25-50 FPS. it was awesome!

LC0g · « **Reply #38 on:** July 25, 2008, 09:09:22 am »

that's a sweet spot. Today's vid cards play anything at like 60 fps and more, the exception being crysis

LC0g

anomaly · « **Reply #39 on:** July 25, 2008, 09:21:31 am »

Quake4 is pretty intense too, with everything cranked up to the max that is. it wasn't even playable at max settings with my set up until i got my second card.

heck, they still use Q4 for benching new cards and such.

i heard the new crysis that coming out is going to scale a bit better. i love the motion blur on the current one. when i drop down to 30-40 FPS it still feels like 50-60. i wish all games used motion blur as well as that.

LC0g · « **Reply #40 on:** July 25, 2008, 09:41:33 am »

yeah motion blur is cool. Warhead is suppose to run best on mid range rigs so... But I am sure Crytek will leave like a Very High settings, just like the first Crysis, to be very unreachable by mid-range rigs: only for freaks lol (or the one with DX9 mod configs

)

LC0g

Gad · « **Reply #41 on:** July 25, 2008, 11:37:53 am »

Quote from: anomaly on July 25, 2008, 07:36:15 am

have you tried to OC it at all?

No, I have never spent any time learning how to overclock.
I didn't know if it was worth the time spent.
I am just glad my PC is still running.

anomaly · « **Reply #42 on:** July 25, 2008, 12:09:34 pm »

lol. well its totally worth the time, unless your Uber rich and can afford the best stuff. if you want to push that 1650 just let me know, ill help ya out.

depending on your setup and how much tweaking you do, you can safely gain from like 5-30% better FPS (from my exp.).

my stock 3Dmark is around 12k OCed i get 18k

Gad · « **Reply #43 on:** July 25, 2008, 12:14:55 pm »

That is a nice improvement. If I get the time maybe I will see what I can do.
I hope to build something new pretty soon.

LC0g · « **Reply #44 on:** July 25, 2008, 06:31:49 pm »

3Dmark really depends of the CPU score: overclocking your Q6600 (it is you that got that huh

) will get you a nice score.

LC0g