8600 gt 512mb ddr2 or 256 ddr3

ok, so here i am - having to choose between two rigs, quite apart in terms of price - the ddr2 rig costs 2/3 the ddr3 version, offers a webcam (i might use it occasionally), good 7200rpm 200gb drive and it comes with 4gb of ram and 64bit vista ultimate. the ddr3 is the 8510w model from hp's line-up - only 120gb of hdd, vb 64bit/32bit (that disc from hp with both versions on... don't know how this works though), no webcam, only pccard 2, but with hdmi out that the cheaper note lacks (the cheaper has no digital out for video as it's based on compal ifl90) - and i am planning to get myself large lcd/plasma tv, and to my biggest disappointment glare type of 1680x1050 screen (i love higher res though - compal one comes with only 1280x800). even when i do some calculations i end up wondering whether or not the ddr3 version is substantially faster than the ddr2 model with twice as much on-board memory (probably capped by the 128bit interface, but you might know that already...).

here you come with your expertise, knowledge and experience. first of all i know you can o/c both cards but i'm more interested in base clock speed of those gpus+rams. i've seen the tests here, but they were made with different drivers, o/c statuses, screen reses and many with xp... plus vista's experience is useless, isn't it? and you all know that 3dmark06 results aren't that trustworthy as well. i know that mostly the 256mb ddr2 cards score almost 500points lower than the ddr3 counterparts, but have almost no opinion on whether the extra 256 ddr2 ram would close the gap between ddr2 and ddr3 models out there. any thoughts, opinions?

second, tests are tests, but still it is the in-game performance that might or might not be visible... so are there any visible in-game perf differences between 512mb ddr2 and 256mb ddr3 flavors of 8600gt? to help you answer my Q i need to inform you that i'm not playing many new shooters (so no or little at most of lost planet, crysis, q4, ut3 etc.), though am a fanatic of splinter cell series, hitman and thief line, and a passionate rpg games' player, so morrowind/oblivion, nwn1/nwn2, dark messiah, witcher, bard will find their way to the bytes of the note drive sooner or later ah and i love rtses of total war series (have every single installment and add-ons), supreme commander and tbses from civilisation series and am awaiting assassin's creed (would love to have it on note even with everything low )... ah and i love setting high volume of textures to get better graphics

so, what would you say? is there a notifiable difference? or maybe it's just like useless 2 fps more? i'd really love to hear what you have to say...

 

GDDR3 is better than DDR2. There is a noticeable difference in 3Dmark scores, but I'm not so sure about frames, maybe, 5 max?

i didnt read the whole post since its just too many words, i read the last sentence

 

Actually the DDR3 version is noticeably faster than the DDR2 version, especially when overclocking. I would say go with the DDR2 version though; you get a bigger hdd and more features like the web cam and the DDR2 has 512mb. The DDR3 version has 256 memory, with at the resolution proposed on it, would lag like crap especially at games (the bigger the res, the more video mem is used). I have an IFL90 and can play games like Crysis, Battlefield 2, and Far Cry at high (Crysis' shaders and shadows are on medium, but I'm using native res of 1280x800)

 

well i wrote that in terms of 3dmarks i've seen somewhat stable 500 points of difference, but the difference in games is what really interests me. plus it's the diff between 256 mb of ddr2 and ddr3, and my decision comes to 512mb ddr2 vs 256 mb ddr3 so the in-game diff could be almost none, or maybe i'm wrong here?

aah and i have no problems with using lower than native res for games... actually i can't see any difference in quality the higher res for screen is optimal for programming work along with chatting... i often have many windows open and really like the screen estate. in games however i can easily decrease the res. really.

 

You can't really say, because as I noted above, higher resolution uses more video memory, and if you got the DDR3 version with 1680x1050 it would lag in games. Theoretically if they had the same resolution, the performance would be close to 10fps difference.

 

Oh, there is NO performance difference between 512MB and 256MB of dedicated memory, the 8600M simply can't use the extra 256MB RAM. End of story.

Otherwise, the HP is thinner and lighter, has better build quality and keyboard, and the battery doesn't stick out.

 

the difference between 256 and 512 mb is so little its basically null.

 

Hmm.....So you said earlier that it CAN, but not effectively, now you say it CAN'T. Which one is it? As far as I know, it CAN use it, it just doesn't need to.

 

Keep this in mind: GDDR3 kicks GDDR2 ass. Simple.

 

It's the same, it can't.

 

yes you're wrong

the 8600gt ddr2 256mb is faster in games than the 8600gt 512mb, not just in benchmark.

the reason is that to take use of 512 mb requires high textures and high resolution, but with a 128bit bandwidth, going to such high resolutions (1900x1200+) or using such high textures = low low low fps except in old games such as those running on source engine and the like

you should get the ddr3 version as it will work better for resolutions below 1680x1050 since the memory is at 700mhz (1.4ghz effectve) rather than ddr2 memory timings at 400mhz (800 effective).

 

nah.. so how much on average? 10fps of kicking?

@vashts121 - as i said i don't mind res decrease to sub native. i'm only wondering whether the price tag diff would be visible in games... after all i don't even test my desktop rigs every now and then, just prefering to see the games working like a charm

 

It will show a little, but you lose many features that the IFL90 offers and the HP doesn't. I don't think it's worth the extra money unless you are that serious about your games and nothing more.

 

No, more accurate values are like 10-15% fps increase (GDDR3) if you play at 1280x800. Can increase up to 30% if you use AA/AF or a higher resolution. Now for real life measurements the 10-15% is more accurate (that is with playable settings).

 

vashts121, what features? HPs are much better than Compals.

 

and what compal benefits do you refer to? yes i know of the webcam, of the express card port and great price... i just wish i could get the compal with higher res screen and any digital out for video... that would make it almost a perfect build i am still considering the choices, but the real power of the gpu shall be somewhat more important matter, as just "showing a little" won't be good enough to justify the price diff. still if it comes to 10-15fps+ diff in favor of ddr3 when the ddr2 version plays sub 15fps i'd say it's worthy

 

Yes, those features. You can get a 1440x900 res if you get the IFL90 from ibuypower.com

 

The battery doesn't poke out more than likely because it's not a 9 cell like the other, and it could even be one of those companies weird prop up batteries.. That I will never understand.

I have the 8600mGT w/512mb gddr2

3d mark scores separate the cards, but the cards aren't separated by much in real life.

Just like when people said my roomates 7900gs would be better than my ddr2 8600mGT... And seriously. It's not. Nothing noticeable.

 

What are you talking about? If it's about the HP, the battery is 8 cell, and it doesn't stick out since it's a better built/designed notebook, and nearly a pound lighter too.

Actually, they are separated by up to 30% performance difference, and that matters for some people.

Yeah, I played Solitaire on both of them yesterday, and I didn't notice any difference.

 

And I thought this was a simple A or B question

 

It is... and there are too many threads on that.

Next one to read the GPU guide before posting... that's getting old.

 

I was talking about bioshock, source engine games, black and white 2.

I'm not too sure what your problem is, sir.

But your attitude is quite stagnant.

 

Dreamer stop wasting your time, if ppl want to think that the moon is made of green cheese ( "it looks like green cheese, so it must be"), nothing you say is gonna change their minds.


ps. personally I think its made of blue cheese .

 

nah my mind could've been changed easily if presented "solid" evidence... plus it's supposed to be short and easy problem, still when you're about to spend that much hard work, sweat and save, money you want to make sure you're making right choice here.

as to the screens, nope i can't get higher res screen in compal and that's one problem... i'm buying the stuff in poland (you know, the location field is there for some reason ) where no known to me reliable shop has any decent compal rigs on offer - sure there was one shop offering i believe hel80 or something, with pathetic card (integrated one) and wsxga+, other with just wxga+ (1440x900 or something, not sure the "name")... but with 8600gt they (the shops) offer only the 512mb ddr2 model (btw for the same price as for the 256 ddr2 model) combined with wxga screen res and only glossy screen.

as for that reading, if it was directed towards me, no reason to be hostile... i've written in the first post that I HAVE SEARCHED THROUGH THE FORUMS NEWSGROUPS WEBSITES AND READ APPROPRIATE ARTICLES/MESSAGES/REVIEWS WITH CARE AND UNDERSTANDING. that means i've read the gpu guide thread among others, i understand chazz's summary. but, again please try to understand, chazz was pointing to the fact that gpu with ddr3 memory can or may be better up to 30%. that's not "must be" or "will always be". most of the threads here go round "will my rig play" plus a game title. mostly it's about fps - which, if you were kind enough to read the first post i hardly play... i have other game areas i like to delve in...

for me therefore the main question was whether the 512 ddr2 version will be substantially slower. it will, but how much in real life? if it's ~10% that would make eg 20fps - 2 = 18fps... or 30-3... in old games eg 60-6 -> still playable, but could i for example set better textures? would there be notifiable difference in games that i mentioned in the first post? would the investition into the more expensive ground get me back better graphics in the games i play? maybe better hdr effects without stuttering in oblivion etc.?

i'm asking specific question, it's not yet another "which is better". it's which is better and is worthy the money taking into consideration the games i am planning to play. and as probably there are people who own similar or exact rigs and play these or similar games or who know how both cards behave in real life situations they can share this knowledge with those who seek'em... at least that's what fora are for, aren't they?

ps. thx for the answers up to now... still i was hoping for some more specific ones the night is young as they say (cause it's night here already ) there might be more replies to come to present opinions that would shed some light on the real life performance...

ps2. and l always thought it was made of mouldy cheese

 

@mkarwin:
It is a very good observation that the GDDR3 is 'up to' 30% and not a must. From my experience those test, albeit true, are done on extreme cases where the difference, being 30%, is unnecesary: or the initial framerates are too high (+60 fps) or too low (10 fps or so), such that the difference become meaningless. You should look at normal playable framerates (~30 fps).

Check this link: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=209066, I have almost the same system but 256MB 8600m GT DDR2. On some of his reviewed games (COD4, CC3, Crysis, Oblivion, The witcher, WiC) I got minus two fps on the minimum values, same on maximum. So, the difference is not so big. Also consider he is reviewing at 1280x800, a higher resolution may result in a bigger difference.

 

and that's kind of answer i was hoping for... any more like this one? i know that if a title is playable on the weaker card i don't need stronger... and if even stronger can't run the demanding titles what's the reason to pump the money into a rig that obviously in 2 years time will run no new games.

@lozanogo - what res are you playing?

 

So, the point is that the GDDR3 card is better because it is and the GDDR2 card has the same performance because it's in a Compal and people have it. There you go...

 

Same of course: 1280x800.

Also: a midrange card is a midrange card, there's no way around it. I think you should ponder all factors and not only the cards for your final choice.

Edit: is to be assumed but ... I played using his same settings (as shown on the pictures), if not I wouldn't be saying I got very similar performance.

 

One thing about comparing benchmarks, there are many things that can affect scores, not just ddr2 vs gddr3 or res, ie settings used ( that review was done using HIGH and MED ) which will impact performance also. I can take a lower performing card and achive similar results by just turning down my settings.

Anyways since this is mostly about real world diff between a ddr2 card vs gddr3 card I did some informal testing. the default mem clock of ddr2 is 400Mhz. On GDDR3 it is 700Mhz.

Since I don't have a ddr2 card to test, I did the next best thing. I ran one game using default clocks and then reran it again but this time overclocking mem from 700 to 900Mhz. GPU clock and shader clock stayed at default, only thing that was changed was the mem clock.

I went from an avg of 40-45fps to 60-65fps with max at times at 85fps. That's only with +200Mhz to mem speed, everything else was kept the same, game settings, resolutions, gpu clocks, shader clocks.

 

@lozanogo - i do factor in all the differences just this graphics departement has fairly high weight coefficient in my formula for the perfect note

@morphy - and where did you get that increase? with what settings? don't want to offend you, but we all know that sometimes the difference at certain settings (even though visible in terms of large fps jump) might be not worthy the price.

 

lol what offense? Just thought this time I'll try to honor your wishes and took the time to set something up. Happy to answer anything and the point you made is the same one I had been making all along and applies to all "benchmarks" or just about anyone claiming certain results on their own. Like anything take it with a grain of salt. It is your money being invested afterall, not mine . Unlike some "commercial pro reviews", most of these user tested scenarios are for the most part done with no agenda in mind. There is nothing to be gained, they aren't paid to do it, they don't have to do it but one thing that can be and should be questioned is their methodology. So I understand where you coming from. I would do the same also.

The game in question is UT3 and I played a whole same level both times with bots, settings were MED, 1440x900, no AA, no AF, VSync off. Frankly I think the boost I gained may be due to that particular game that happens to benefit the most from higher mem speed. I was actually quite surprised it was that much. I think in most situations I doubt I'll see that kind of increase. I'd test more games if I have the time but chose UT3 because it was the easiest and like I said everything else was kept the same. The only variable was the change in mem speed. It isn't meant to show how much faster Gddr3 is over ddr2 but to show just how a change in mem speed can affect performance in one particular game.
Hope that helps.

 

After reading everyone's responses, heres my thoughts based on my experience
Most next gen games coming out in the next three years are going to be incredibly graphic intensive, somewhere along the lines of a beefed up crysis with direct 10+. Since most desktops cant even run crysis current past 1280 resolu at medium settings with a passable frame rate, it'll be even harder for laptops. Your best bet is to stick to 1280 native resol for games (not running at native decrease performance), in which the 256 ddr3 will be considerably faster than the 512 ddr2. If you're aiming for gaming, stick to the 2gb ram ddr3 gpu comp build.

You can always add Ram later on, 4gb ddr2 ram will be dirt cheap by the time ddr3 memory becomes mainstream, but it'll be very hard for you to change mobile gpus, although its possible to,depending on your notebook manufacturer

you probably want to switch to ddr3 memory in 2 years anyways, so make due with 2gigs of ram for now, it'll knock every program down and handle it anyways

I currently own a m1530 with 256 8600gt ddr3 and 2gb of memory and its running every game with better than playable fps, even crysis after tweaking graphic options. Im sure that I'll playing games on this for the next 4 years without much worry. But thats just my two cents.

 

I'd agree with WileyCoyote; if anything, get the GDDR3 card simply because it's more futureproof than the DDR2. Yes, in game performance on CURRENT games may not be too different, but that may not apply to future games. And it's well documented that the GDDR3 cards overlock much further than the DDR2 ones (the DDR2 cards still do quite well, but in the end they can't compete).

But I also understand brand loyalty is a very strong thing. If you want a Sager/Compal, just buy it. None of this will matter in 5 years anyway

 

@ackeron you should well know that i'm not a fan of compal brand especially once i was told the shop can get me the ultra capacity external battery to last through the studying day at university that 5 yrs mark is what worries me - one can say that you are to change the platform every 2-3 yrs so that your note is up to date (if you're buying mid-level "gear") so it's the problem of money spent now and later in contrast with the options you get (warranty, options, saved money etc.)

@wileycoyote for the ram upgrade 2->4 gb i managed to get a deal where it's free or less than dirt cheap so this leads to such a decision... you know, if they offer it for <20$ why not get it?

@morphy thx that gets me the details needed to see the picture... (i was an ut fan, but don't play now... i may try ut3 once the rig is bought).

 

i have the asus c90s which came with the 8600m gt 512mb ddr2. I was very disappointed when I played games like source, bioshock, and oblivion. I could barely play these on med settings on resolutions like 1280 x 784(although it did handle source based games very nicely until i started to run it at 1850x1050 with AA). Luckily, i was searching through ebay and found a 8600m gt 256mb ddr3 on ebay for $90. What a steal! I upgraded it from the ddr2 and i was fairly happy with the results. BTW, I heavily OC'd my ddr2 and the stock ddr3 was still slightly running faster than the ddr2. Then I decided to OC the core, shader, and mem on the ddr3 and i noticed a pretty good increase in performance on top of that. The temps on both cards were similar but ddr3 actually ran a bit cooler. The downside to my ddr3 was that it draws more power from the notebook. I'm not saying that it gives a HUGE performance increase, but as a person who owned both GPUs on the same notebook i would have to say that the performance increase on the ddr3 is pretty noticeable. It gave that small push that was needed so i could run games smoothly with 30+fps, especially when overclocked. However, if i didn't find that GPU on ebay, i probably wouldnt have got it as a new ddr3 card cost $250.

 

what a steal so you're saying that where ddr2 512 is working on 20fps so that the picture is not fluid but rather like those ancient movies, the ddr3 256 gets you to somewhere near 30+ and makes the games rather more fluid? and that stock 256ddr3 beats o/c of 512ddr2? or it's o/c versions of both architectures?

it's good to here such opinion as i was wondering, as some here already said, whether the "difference" would lie in the 10 -> 13 fps (both unplayable) or 50+ -> 65+ where both cards would let the games run smoothly

keep the opinions coming - i've been given a discount in one of my fav shops so that now the ifl90 comes for 2/3 the price of 8510w+ultra capacity battery

 

Which source games you could play only on medium settings?

 

nah new element got into equation... somewhere in the middle of the price diff lies the new compal jfl92 - exactly one reseller is offerring wsxga+ screens here (matte to be precise) for the staggering price for the jfl92 model line-up.
but it's t9300 + 4gb 667mhz + seagate's momentus 200gb w/ 16mb cache and sataII interface + 8600gt 512 ddr2. i wonder how this rig plays against 8510w and t7500 ifl90 (compal models only differ by the mobo and penryn cpu). the diff in price is somewhat this:
t7500, 8600gt 512ddr2, 200gb@7200rpm, 4gb ram, wifi agn
+350$ = t9300 + rest the same as with ifl90
+500$ = hp-c 8510w 112ea model (t7500, 2gb ram, nv570m, 120gb@7200, wifi abg)

what would you say to be expense-wise choice?