GT 220 DDR3 vs DDR2 - worse it?

[mikek753]

hi all,

I see new gt 220 cards with DDR3 vs original are based on DDR2.
Will GT 220 be faster with DDR3 vs DDR2?
Any URL for test results are very welcome.

tnx

 

[Denithor]

Higher bandwidth - yes.
Higher performance - maybe, at best.

High bandwidth without a powerful core doesn't really provide anything, as shown by the poor performance of the old Radeon 2900 series cards. They had like double the bandwidth of the nVidia lineup but sucked in comparison in actual gaming.

It's like having a firehose hooked up to your home spigot. Without enough pressure, even though you have a wide pipe you just aren't going to get much water (data) flowing through there.

 

[BernardP]

The following review shows a comparison of the DDR2 and DDR3 versions of the GT 220. There is a significant difference in performance:

http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7198&pageid=6115

Look at the clocks carefully, as some of the benchmarks are based on overclocks. Closest to stock GT 220's are: DDR2 @ 625/1480/800, while the DDR3 is 660/1530/1600. Both are overclocked, but it gives a good idea of the relative power of each.

 

[mikek753]

thanks for the link.
I didn't expect that GT 220 DDR3 would be on par with HD 4670.
looks like it's good alternative for 4670 when price is right.
The best for 4670 DDR3 was $40 AR
and current for 220 DDR3 about twice as much $80.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Even a weak core like the GT 220 benefits from not having DDR2 memory. The same can be said of the HD4650.

 

[BernardP]

The GT220 only manages to squeak by the HD 4650 DDR3 in most benchmarks. However, it's become difficult to find a HD 4650 with DDR3 memory. There is this one, for example, but it's no bargain:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-308-_-Product

If you have no reason to favor an Nvidia card, the HD 4670 is a better value. Despite this, Nvidia is selling GT220's, so some users, not all of them fanbois, must have their reasons to prefer NVidia.

 

[mikek753]

The GT220 only manages to squeak by the HD 4650 DDR3 in most benchmarks. ...
If you have no reason to favor an Nvidia card, the HD 4670 is a better value. Despite this, Nvidia is selling GT220's, so some users, not all of them fanbois, must have their reasons to prefer NVidia.

I'm looking for HTPC gpu.
Yes, 4670 is better for gaming and cost LESS :awe:
But, ATI for what ever reason doesn't support (in driver IMHO) h.264 L5.1/8+ frames. Where nVidia enabled this support and opened this API that any s/w can use it.
I was hoping that ATI will do t he same, but ATI don't care for this matter for a while. Maybe this is agreement between ATI & nVidia - one for games and another for video :hmm:

Now we got GT 240 and I hope that will push GT 220 prices to hd 4650 level.

BTW - I've run ATI cards after replacing geForce 2.

 

[betasub]

It seems quite common for low-end GPUs to be paired up with very low bandwidth memory - boardmakers can save money by going 64-bit and DDR2 to hit low price points - so getting DDR3 and/or 128bit can free the memory-limited shackles on these GPUs.

Conversely, high-end GPUs have tended to be "over-specced" as far as memory-bandwidth goes (remember 8800GTX or the HD2900 cards) but SLI/Crossfire and/or 30"screen owners will pay the extra for the expensive memory&interface, as do many enthuasists.

 

[BernardP]

I agree with you, Mike: NVidia has better drivers than ATI. That's why I'm also going to get a GT220 (DDR3) or GT240 for my HTPC/light gaming setup. In my case, I give bonus points to NVidia for being able to create and scale custom resolutions without having to fiddle with PowerStrip