Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Is GDDR2 better?

20 Jan 2010   #21
Fumz

7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Coolness,

This isn't a theoretical discussion about GDDR5 and what vendors "might" be able to do with it one day in the future; it's a practical discussion about graphics cards. I asked for the link to a card which would back up your statements; instead, you give me Wiki...

If you can't provide the links that demonstrate this "always better and 3x as fast" nonsense... (and we knew that in advance) then perhaps questioning whether it's the other guy who knows what he's talking about isn't one of your better ideas?

Quote:
Hynix 2Gb GDDR5 boasts with 7GHz clock speed.
What you forgot to include was the last part...
Quote:
The memory maker claims that the new chip will be in demand in the second half of 2010.
I'm stunned that it doesn't bother you that no graphics cards exist with the specs you cite...


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
20 Jan 2010   #22
Coolness

Win 7 pro 64-bit, Ubuntu 9.10 64-bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Fumz View Post
Coolness,

This isn't a theoretical discussion about GDDR5 and what vendors "might" be able to do with it one day in the future; it's a practical discussion about graphics cards. I asked for the link to a card which would back up your statements; instead, you give me Wiki...

If you can't provide the links that demonstrate this "always better and 3x as fast" nonsense... (and we knew that in advance) then perhaps questioning whether it's the other guy who knows what he's talking about isn't one of your better ideas?

Quote:
Hynix 2Gb GDDR5 boasts with 7GHz clock speed.
What you forgot to include was the last part...
Quote:
The memory maker claims that the new chip will be in demand in the second half of 2010.
I'm stunned that it doesn't bother you that no graphics cards exist with the specs you cite...
Didnt read that far
Alright, alright, youre right in everything you say and im wrong in everything i say. You win, i lose. Now lets never talk about this again
My System SpecsSystem Spec
20 Jan 2010   #23
computersplus

Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bit
 
 

you need to look at the memory bit rate as well I would rather have 1 gig of 256 bit ram then 2 gigs of 128 bit ram
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

21 Jan 2010   #24
Coolness

Win 7 pro 64-bit, Ubuntu 9.10 64-bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by computersplus View Post
you need to look at the memory bit rate as well I would rather have 1 gig of 256 bit ram then 2 gigs of 128 bit ram
From what i understand, the memory bus measures how many bits the gpu can send to the GRAM at a time. Its true that this is useful, but i wouldnt trade 2 gigs for it. 128 is really fast enough.
@Fumz i figured out where i got the theory from, i really mixed thing up! GPU-Z tells me, that the bandwidth is mulitplied by two in gddr3 vs. ddr, and again multiplied by two in gddr5 vs gddr3. Sorry, my bad.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
21 Jan 2010   #25
Fumz

7 Ultimate x64
 
 

No problem Coolness... no blood no foul ... all is good.

You multiply the clock frequency of the RAM by 2 for all DDR because data is sent on the leading and trailing edge of the wave... whether it's DDR, DDR2, 3, 4 or 5. Sometimes web sites mess up and post the clock frequency, sometimes they post the effective rate... so it can be confusing if you don't already have a good idea of what you're looking for with each particular card.

The differences in performance between 128-bit and 448-bit is huge. The bit rate of a card is it's bottleneck... most of the time... but again, you've got to take the overall picture into account when selecting a card.

ATI and nvidia have historically approached this differently, with ATI choosing a lower bit-rate and higher clock speeds; nvidia choosing lower clock speeds and higher bit rates. I think ATI learned its lesson well when they tried to compete with the 8800's... and since then, it's rare to see 128-bits on anything but their low end cards.

As far as the onboard RAM goes, whether to get 2GB or 1GB or less really depends on your monitor as that isn't going to determine overall performance, but rather what AA settings you'll be able to use at what resolutions. If you're running 2500 on two displays, then yeah, you'll be wanting the card with a lot of onboard RAM; however, if you're running 1680x1050, then 2GB isn't going to help you as 1GB of onboard is more than enough RAM to render the game with full AA and AF, thus, that extra gig is just sitting there idle... so again, it really boils down to what you've got and what you expect to do.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
21 Jan 2010   #26
Coolness

Win 7 pro 64-bit, Ubuntu 9.10 64-bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Fumz View Post
No problem Coolness... no blood no foul ... all is good.

You multiply the clock frequency of the RAM by 2 for all DDR because data is sent on the leading and trailing edge of the wave... whether it's DDR, DDR2, 3, 4 or 5. Sometimes web sites mess up and post the clock frequency, sometimes they post the effective rate... so it can be confusing if you don't already have a good idea of what you're looking for with each particular card.

The differences in performance between 128-bit and 448-bit is huge. The bit rate of a card is it's bottleneck... most of the time... but again, you've got to take the overall picture into account when selecting a card.

ATI and nvidia have historically approached this differently, with ATI choosing a lower bit-rate and higher clock speeds; nvidia choosing lower clock speeds and higher bit rates. I think ATI learned its lesson well when they tried to compete with the 8800's... and since then, it's rare to see 128-bits on anything but their low end cards.

As far as the onboard RAM goes, whether to get 2GB or 1GB or less really depends on your monitor as that isn't going to determine overall performance, but rather what AA settings you'll be able to use at what resolutions. If you're running 2500 on two displays, then yeah, you'll be wanting the card with a lot of onboard RAM; however, if you're running 1680x1050, then 2GB isn't going to help you as 1GB of onboard is more than enough RAM to render the game with full AA and AF, thus, that extra gig is just sitting there idle... so again, it really boils down to what you've got and what you expect to do.
Dude! Earlier today we went and bought a card for my friend. Its was a ATI Radeon HD 5770 with 850 mhz processor and 1gb gddr5 @4.9 Ghz. It was 128-bit. Did we screw up? I think we can still change it. Should we?
My System SpecsSystem Spec
21 Jan 2010   #27
computersplus

Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bit
 
 

I would not buy a card with less than 256 bit memory interface
My System SpecsSystem Spec
21 Jan 2010   #28
Fumz

7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Coolness View Post
Dude! Earlier today we went and bought a card for my friend. Its was a ATI Radeon HD 5770 with 850 mhz processor and 1gb gddr5 @4.9 Ghz. It was 128-bit. Did we screw up? I think we can still change it. Should we?
4.9GHz or 4.9Gbps? I think you mean the latter... which is the data rate.

Did you screw up? No. It's a decent card; although for current gen stuff you'd like to see it outperform a GTX 260 or a 4870. I guess it all boils down to whether you paid more or less than you would have for a 260 or a 4870?
My System SpecsSystem Spec
21 Jan 2010   #29
stormy13
Microsoft MVP

Win 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by computersplus View Post
I would not buy a card with less than 256 bit memory interface
Says the guy with a card with a 128 bit interface. Also with GDDR5 (and to a lesser extent GDDR3) it isn't as much of a deal as it used to be when cards had DDR/DDR2 and GDDR2.

Quote:
4.9GHz or 4.9Gbps? I think you mean the latter... which is the data rate.

Did you screw up? No. It's a decent card; although for current gen stuff you'd like to see it outperform a GTX 260 or a 4870.
4.8 GHz on the reference design, maybe a bit more depending on who made the card and what the clock it at.

As far as beating the GTX 260 or 4870, depends on the game,

techPowerUp :: HIS Radeon HD 5770 1 GB Review :: Page 1 / 34
My System SpecsSystem Spec
21 Jan 2010   #30
computersplus

Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by stormy13 View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by computersplus View Post
I would not buy a card with less than 256 bit memory interface
Says the guy with a card with a 128 bit interface. Also with GDDR5 (and to a lesser extent GDDR3) it isn't as much of a deal as it used to be when cards had DDR/DDR2 and GDDR2.

Quote:
4.9GHz or 4.9Gbps? I think you mean the latter... which is the data rate.

Did you screw up? No. It's a decent card; although for current gen stuff you'd like to see it outperform a GTX 260 or a 4870.
4.8 GHz on the reference design, maybe a bit more depending on who made the card and what the clock it at.

As far as beating the GTX 260 or 4870, depends on the game,

techPowerUp :: HIS Radeon HD 5770 1 GB Review :: Page 1 / 34
when I bought my card 256 bit cards were pretty pricey and I did not need it my machine is for desktop use not any gaming but if I were concerned about memory type like the OP I would be shopping for a card with a 256 bit memory interface
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 Is GDDR2 better?




Thread Tools



Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:01.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App