HD 3850 AGP

[Turbonium]

I need to get a replacement for my dying 6800 GT, as I don't want to build a whole new system. Cost effectiveness is not a priority.

Most, if not all, decent AGP cards still on the market are AMD parts, leaving me with little to no choice. So this leads me to the question: is AMD's driver support for AGP cards still lacking? If so, what's so bad about it?

Also: is there an accurate chart out there concerning peak power draw of video cards? Specifically, I'm wondering what the peak power draw is for the HD 3850. The best chart I've found so far is here.

 

[happy medium]

The 4650 is faster then the 6800gt by about 35/40% and uses the least amount of power among the latest Agp cards. It says 300watt psu recommended. It should run on any good psu.

This one has ddr3.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814103080

Whats the rest of your system like?

 

[Turbonium]

P4 3.2C
1GB RAM
430W Seasonic PSU
link

How about a HD 3650? I can get one for 70CAD: link.

Also: does GDDR2 tend to run hotter than GDDR3?

Note that I'm in Canada, so my only real options are http://www.ncix.com or http://www.newegg.ca

 

[happy medium]

Yea,for that system go for the cheapest 4650 card you can find. I just came off a pent 4 @3.35 and a 7800gs card and I was cpu limited (more like system limited) in alot of games. So grab yourself a 4650 and crank up the settings on your 19 inch monitor.

Good luck.

 

[happy medium]

A 3650 is mabe little faster then the 6800gt. Let me see if I can find some benches?

 

[happy medium]

wow the 3650 seems alot faster in more modern games ! Get that one if you can get it cheaper.

http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1642&pageID=7328

 

[Turbonium]

Pretty much any AGP card these days will trump the 6800 GT in performance (except for the 5xxx, 6200, or 7300 GT cards that are still around, of course).

I'm more concerned over power draw and driver support, as well as thermals--I've heard that GDDR2 runs hotter than GDDR3. I'm not sure if that means it will die faster in the long run.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Power draw should be comparable to their PCI-E counterparts. So at it's peak, an HD3850 will probably use around 100W (very rough estimation). The HD3650 and 4650 will use quite a bit less, probably around 50W (rough estimation).

 

[Turbonium]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
Power draw should be comparable to their PCI-E counterparts. So at it's peak, an HD3850 will probably use around 100W (very rough estimation). The HD3650 and 4650 will use quite a bit less, probably around 50W (rough estimation).

Hmmm, ok, that's useful information still, even if it's an estimate.

Is there any distinct advantage with the 4650 over a 3650? I think I might opt for one of those two, given my paranoia about power draw (I want this system to last as long as possible; I don't really need more processing power anyway, as the most demanding game I play is Assassin's Creed, and only very rarely... usually it's just Source-based games, or Warcraft III).

 

[imported_clockerspiel]

I have the same processor as yours on a D865 PERL motherboard, coupled with a Sapphire 3850 and a Corsair 520HX power supply. I bought the card when it first came out some 20 months ago and paid over $200 bucks for it at that time. The card has served faithfully all this time for all sorts of tasks including gaming, using the hotfix drivers from Sapphire's website on Windows XP Pro. The customer reviews on NewEgg will give you helpful hints on the drivers.

However, my processor bottlenecks the card to some extent, and my system is sub-par for games like Crysis. Older games such as FEAR, and Half-Life 2 work fine. A relatively recent article compares the 3850 with the 4650, revealing that the 3850 blows the 4650 away, when a more powerful processor is used:

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...overclocking,2395.html

On the negative side, it is doubtful you'll be able to run the 3850 with your current power supply and don't expect to play games such as Crysis, at decent resolutions with any AA or AF.

Although I have a quad core box with a PCIe 9800GTX, I find it difficult to part with the old computer completely, as it has faithfully served my needs for over four years - it just keeps proddin' along.

Good luck!

 

[happy medium]

His power supply is fine for a 3850.

 

[Turbonium]

- deleted -

 

[Turbonium]

Originally posted by: clockerspiel
However, my processor bottlenecks the card to some extent, and my system is sub-par for games like Crysis. Older games such as FEAR, and Half-Life 2 work fine. A relatively recent article compares the 3850 with the 4650, revealing that the 3850 blows the 4650 away, when a more powerful processor is used:

Honestly, as long as this thing can run StarCraft 2 at 50FPS+ with everything enabled, I'll be happy (I might still be stuck with this system when it comes out). And like I said, I only really play CS:S and Warcraft III these days anyway, and any of the cards in question will be more than enough for those games.

Originally posted by: happy medium
His power supply is fine for a 3850.

The only issue is longevity. It can handle it now, but what about in 5 years time? All PSUs lose max. load capacity over time.

 

[bryanW1995]

a seasonic s12 will easily handle a 3850 for as long as you want to use it. don't let the 430w rating fool you, those guys make great psus.

starcraft 2 maxed at 50 fps will probably require a much better system than yours regardless of the video card.

 

[Turbonium]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
a seasonic s12 will easily handle a 3850 for as long as you want to use it. don't let the 430w rating fool you, those guys make great psus.

Yea, that's why I got it.

That being said.

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
starcraft 2 maxed at 50 fps will probably require a much better system than yours regardless of the video card.

Let's hope not. Blizz is generally good with system specs - they like more people playing their games.

Honestly, I don't think 45-50FPS is too much to ask for an RTS running at 1440x900. That being said, you're probably right. I was being too optimistic. I should expect something more like 35-40FPS steady.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
a seasonic s12 will easily handle a 3850 for as long as you want to use it. don't let the 430w rating fool you, those guys make great psus.

starcraft 2 maxed at 50 fps will probably require a much better system than yours regardless of the video card.

And bryan knows his shit.:thumbsup:

 

[evolucion8]

I used to have an HIS HD 3850 AGP and I used an original ATI BIOS which I modified with the HIS configuration and flash it, it allowed me to use the oficial ATi drivers and never had a single issue, it also allowed me for lower power consumption.

 

[0roo0roo]

yea don't spend that much, the issue is always going to be the cpu bottlenecking your system.
as for rts games, starcraft might hit the cpu hard. bilzzard have low requirements for the gpu, but they generally strain cpus a bit. p4 is a bit of a dog.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: happy medium
The 4650 is faster then the 6800gt by about 35/40% and uses the least amount of power among the latest Agp cards. It says 300watt psu recommended. It should run on any good psu.

This one has ddr3.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814103080

Whats the rest of your system like?

Wow, I'm surprised they call that a 4650 considering its clocked the same as a 4670 (750MHz) and has GDDR3 as well...it really is pretty much a 4670 (which should make it just as fast if not faster than a 3850) and for a pretty damn good price considering its AGP.

Makes it tempting to buy for a retro Athlon XP mobile AGP rig of mine :laugh:

 

[Borealis7]

if your processor is an LGA775 socket, buy a G33 motherboard instead. later on you could fit a PCI-E card on it and live happily (meduim) ever after

 

[bunnyfubbles]

he's got socket 478

 

[evolucion8]

I used to had a Pentium 4 3.4GHz Extreme Edition and it would bottleneck even my old X1950XT AGP, using the CT-479 adapter, I used a Pentium M overclocked to 2.70GHz and it would run in circles around the Pentium 4 in gaming performance, the Netbust architecture is a snail in gaming performance.

 

[Turbonium]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
I used to had a Pentium 4 3.4GHz Extreme Edition and it would bottleneck even my old X1950XT AGP, using the CT-479 adapter, I used a Pentium M overclocked to 2.70GHz and it would run in circles around the Pentium 4 in gaming performance, the Netbust architecture is a snail in gaming performance.

While a 3.2 GHz Northwood isn't fast by today's standards, I wouldn't call it slow, either. I think it's adequate enough to be passable, at least for the most strenuous games that I play (Assassin's Creed... I don't play beasts like Crysis or Bioshock). That being said, I do notice it bottlenecking even less demanding games like CS:S at times, depending on the map (I'll be able to confirm this once I have the faster 4650 in my system).

And if I need to, I can always overclock the FSB by 4%. rawr

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Turbonium
While a 3.2 GHz Northwood isn't fast by today's standards, I wouldn't call it slow, either. I think it's adequate enough to be passable, at least for the most strenuous games that I play (Assassin's Creed... I don't play beasts like Crysis or Bioshock). That being said, I do notice it bottlenecking even less demanding games like CS:S at times, depending on the map (I'll be able to confirm this once I have the faster 4650 in my system).

And if I need to, I can always overclock the FSB by 4%. rawr

Pentium 4 performance in games has been always abysmal, it can bottleneck an X800XT, a card that's over 4 times slower than the HD 3850, the Pentium 4 exceptional performance is at media encoding and creation, but Multi Threading in the Northwood core tends to be a bit more sluggish than with the Prescott implementation because it runs out of resources faster. Assassin Creed is more CPU hungry than Crysis and Bioshock, Resident Evil 5 is also CPU hungry and Gears of War which uses all my four cores.

 

[Turbonium]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
Assassin Creed is more CPU hungry than Crysis and Bioshock.

I don't expect amazing performance from a system this old, and I'm happy that I can even play AC at all (which runs good enough, all things considered).

And I'm not sure what you mean with the Prescott. Northwood cores are faster clock for clock than the Prescott when it comes to gaming afaik, due to the shorter pipeline.