dude, Radeon DDR is only a bit faster than SDR...

[andylawcc]

SDR performance taken solely from this review

1024 X 768 16 bit
3dMark 2000
Geforce MX = 4548
Radeon SDR = 4146
Quake3
Geforce MX = 70.8
Radeon SDR = 65.4

ok, so geforce MX is a tadbit faster than Radeon SDR this particular setting, (different story in 32 bit though)


now take a look at anandtech's and firingsquad's reviews on the DDR

1024 X 768 16 bit
3dMark 2000 (FS only)
Radeon DDR = 5031
Geforce MX = 4564

Quake3 (FS/AT)
Radeon DDR = 84.0/83.8
Geforce MX = 80.8/81.2


for comparison sake, Radeon DDR is a bit faster than MX (in some case its even slower, but once again Radeon ruled the 32 bit).
Here's my little conclusion, taken from Q3:
MX is 96 percent performance of DDR
SDR is 90 percent performance of MX
so using algebra, (SDR = .90 * MX; MX = .96 * DDR; SDR = .90 * .96 DDR)
SDR is 86.4 percent of DDR Radeon.

of course, this comparison is extremely raw, since I only use one setting.
the reason i use it is because 17' monitor is what I use (1024X768 is my res) and I don't use 32 bit.


so my final conclusion is:
with the price for SDR is around 149 Retail and possibly 120ish OEM, and DDR is 200 (150 in HD )
DDR doesn't quite worth the money.

 

[RagingGuardian]

Which DDR you refering to? 64Mb or 32Mb? If it's the 32Mb DDR I agree. I'm surprised to see the SDR perform so close to the DDR. The engineers at ATI did a great job of pushing the performance from the chip core and keeping the RAM a limiting factor.

 

[andylawcc]

64mg.
and 64 mg vs 32 mg is actually quite a difference, in contrast to Geforce 64m vs 32.

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/reviews/video/ati_radeon_32mb/4.shtml

 

[MikeyMike]

That resolution isn't nearly as bandwith limited as if you were in 32bit color. Compare the results for those resolutions. However, if you never play in 32bit, I agree that the SDR is a better choice.

 

[BD2003]

DDR memory is practically useless unless you use 32 bit color. Why dont you rerun those tests in 32bit and then see if your opinion changes?

 

[Argo]

Was that retail or OEM? 64MB retail has higher clocked ram and core.

 

[Noriaki]

A GeForce2MX works a GeForce256DDR until about 10x7x32 or 12x10x32 when it needs the DDR RAM, in 10x7x16 you aren't near as bandwidth limited and the chips are the same core (with a possible clock speed variation as 64MB Retail have 183 not 166).

Check it in 12x10x32 or evev 10x7x32, I think it will paint a different picture.

 

[Rigoletto]

Excuse me Andylawcc,

the law of diminishing returns applies particularly to computer chips.
Radeon DDR is ~25% faster than SDR according to these figures (your maths not adding up).
In the world of graphics cards 25% is an absolutely bloody huge increase. What is your problem??! Would you come to me and say "oh I can get a PIII 1.1GHz for another $50 but it's only a fraction faster than the 750"?

 

[zippy]

Where are you getting that 83.8fps score from anandtech??? Its not in the Radeon 64MB DDR preview. Do you mean the Radeon AIW? I doubt that a Radeon AIW is faster than a Radeon 64MB DDR. Also, keep in mind the specs:

Pentium III 800E, AOpen Socket to Slot Converter
Kingmax PC150 128MB, AOpen AX6BC PRO II
WesternDigital 136BA, LITEON 48x CDROM
Seasonic 300W, EIZO T68, Korean Windows98 SE
DirectX 7.0A
Realtek 8029AS PCI NIC : Slot 4, No SoundCard

-rage3d
vs

AMD Athlon 750
AOpen AK72
128MB PC133 Corsair SDRAM
Hard Drive IBM Deskstar DPTA-372050 20.5GB 7200 RPM Ultra ATA 66
CDROM Phillips 48X

Just a lil lopsided...

BTW, 20% is a huge boost....especially at that lower resolution!

 

[bluemax]

This is why (in another thread- untouched I might add :|) I wanted someone to do a REAL review of both SDR and DDR cards on the same computer!! Get a REAL, ACCURATE measurement! I'm hoping one of our ForSale dealers can get some of these cards for the price of dirt.
Gimme' Radeon! I can handle SDR!

 

[imhotepmp]

rigoletto: I don't think andylawcc means he expect "DDR = 2 X SDR" performance,
but for his particular case, a SDR fits him better.