ATI HD3650 GDDR3 w/1GIG VRAM

How good is this card vs., say, a 8600m GT? The reason I'm asking is I'm thinking of picking up one of these: http://1toppc.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=M70SA-B1&Category_Code=

Info on the card seems to be somewhat scarce and I'm curious as to how it stacks up.

 

i think it is equal to the 8700m gt but it has dx10.1

 

Depending on the game, but typically: 8700M GT > HD 3650 > 8600M GT.

 

1 gig of V-Ram on a card with only 4 ROPs? Marketing?

 

1gb vram, dx10.1 and 128bit

it will fool anyone one

 

Agreed. Fill that thing up with a gig or so of textures running in a DX10.1 engine/environment and it'll render at seconds per frame, not frames per second.

 

Will comparing GPU specification between the desktop Radeon HD 3650 and the Geforce 8600M GT or the Geforce 9500M GS being similar it can be observed that the the Geforce has more horsepower when it comes to hardware:



Plus 1GB of VRAM doesn't necessarily mean better as the HD 3650 has a 128-bit Memory Bus just like the Geforce card which means it can't really make effective use of the full VRAM to the extend it is portrayed.

 

It's even worse than that. 1GB of VRAM means it'll hold twice the textures/data of the 8600, yet when it comes to displaying all that data, it has 1/2 the ROPs. This looks to be a very unbalanced card, made more for "bragging rights" than actually playing games.

Why not just give it 1/2 the RAM running twice as fast?

 

The ATI HD3650 is VERY slightly better than the 8600M GT, but they're pretty much very similar in performances. They're both mid-range...

 

Pretty easy to see that since it is the 3600 series it is midrange such as the hd2600

 

That's the desktop version.

 

That pic is wrong, not that is very important, but the real values are:



I think that the Ati might be SLIGHTLY better, am i wrong?

 

either way the 3650 is crap and filled lies about performance

 

You are incorrect about the values being wrong. The image I posted is a more accurate representation of these GPU's in the present notebook platform.

Both of those values are corrected to match the mobile counterparts. GPUreview website states the GPU clocks of the Geforce 8600 M GT DDR2 the same as the desktop 8600 GT which makes it an incorrect comparison, but as observed with the available information provided by GPU-Z on both the 8600 M GT and Mobility HD 3650 those clocks were brought down to match the notebook GPU's and not the desktop ones.

Here are the actual clocks for both these mobile GPU's:

Mobility HD 3650

As seen in this image the Mobility HD 3650 for the laptop has its clocks at 600/400 and not at 725/800.

Geforce 8600 M GT DDR2

As seen in this image the Geforce 8600 M GT DDR2 for the laptop has its clocks at 475/400 and not at 475/700.

Make those adjustments in GPUreview for both those cards and the GPU statistics presented will match those of the GPU-Z information representing both these notebook graphics cards.(still not 100%, but more accurate representation)

 

on the ati why is the bandwith and the stream processors so high
edit u really cant compare it both because 1 is xp and the other is vista here is a pic of my craphics card the 8600m gs i know both these cards eats my card in every way but here it is

 

I'd blame that on the GPU-Z program not reading the information correctly as this chip is quite new in the mobile category.

 

However it has the same number of MRTs (8).

Also for any card wishing to use DX10.1 features having large buffers to write to and access would be very handy for both geometry, cube maps, material handling, to use for MSRB, not just limited to textures. The question is just whether or not these features are lost when the shader orkload is increased. But compared to the GF8600-9500 it would be about as shader limited if not more. Although definitely would be most useful to something like an HD3850/3870 than an HD3650.

Nice thought, but it's also more power consuming that way. And it's usually more expensive to buy much faster modules than denser slower modules which are usually the mass produced part of the equation.

I'd prefer a faster 512MB GDDR3 than 1GB of GDDR2.

And yeah just like anything else unfortunately many people just think 1GB>512MB. But then again people also just think that because something is 128bit it can't use more than X MB of VRAM as well.

 

thats because 475/400 is stock clocks for DDR2, whereas 475/700 is stock for DDR3 (mine's OC'd at 555/802)

 

The memory bandwidth is warped, but the SPs are correct.

Notice in the GPU review the Gflops are out of whack too; heck I wouldn't care about hardware AA resolve if it actually pushed 72 Teraflops of processing power.

Still have a texture bottleneck though.

 

Indeed I'm aware that the 8600M GT DDR3 is clocked higher than the DDR2 version, but I'm making a comparison between the Mobility HD 3650 DDR2 and the Geforce 8600M GT DDR2, because I only have GPU-Z information available on the DDR2 version of HD 3650 and GPUreview website only provides the insight into the DDR3 version of these mobile cards. But yea if we compare the DDR3 versions of these cards then I suppose things might be different. Maybe someone who has it can provide us with information on this matter.

 

i think that they should not have new hard ware for dx10.1 and they should just call it dx11. and get it over wtih i dont see how they put so much hype in the not finished dx10 and it has issues with the hardware

 

Agree.
I just bought a new notebook with a Dx10 card.
Makes me think maybe I should have waited an extra 3 weeks for the HD 3650.

 

we're not the only 1. we have millions of people behind our side lol

 

Won't matter too much.

Sure there are some 'POTENTIAL' benefits to DX10.1 other than upcoming Vantage Bungholiomarks, but it's not like you'll be obsoleted in a year. And if intel has their way they'll obsolete you and the DX10.1 guys at the same time.

Really, considering the hidtory of DX10, it was either DX10 and DX10.1 or else DX9.0D for nV and then DX10.0 for ATi, and it's unlikely anyone would've bee any more happy with that either.

In the end it's like early SM3.0 on the GF6 and then a feature, but of only limited use around the time of launch, and by the time games exploited the features, that early hardware was left behind, and only ever relevant as a Box checkmark. Sure it may mean slightly longer longevity, but even then by that time most people will be running something else and buy their next big upgrade.

It's a tie breaker if you see equal price/performance, but I wouldn't pick it primarily for that now unless you're a developer who wants to test out the features.

 

If the laptop you speak of is the one with the 9500M GS, then it isn't worth the wait for the 3650.

 

Yeah, I'm referring to the notebook in my sig. The thing is that I haven't been able to play around with this laptop much ever since I got it (busy with other stuff), so I might have just waited until the HD 3650. Ow will... what's done is done, lets just wait and see what this card can pull off.

 

let us know how it is

 

It doesnt specify, but i'll bet it has pretty slow cheap memory to boot, pontentially making it slower than the same card with half the ram.

 

I'm almost positive the 3650 mobile version has DDR2. Not DDR3. At least on the Toshiba A305.

 

The 3650 in the M50SA did not do good, it was performing worse than the 8600gt and almost worse than the GS!

However maybe it was driver issues or something?

 

Um, where does the nb read ddr3 on the website?

 

Drivers, factory underclocking, you name it.
The 3650 should outperform the 8600M GT DDR 2 and be very close to the DDR 3 version...

 

yea i have this card in my laptop, runs games great but not 3dmark so much. plus atitool, riva, and powerstrip dont support it for overclocking yet, i guess because its new and no updated versions have come out yet

 

Looking to get a new laptop (being computer-less sucks!) and the one I'm eyeballing is this great deal: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220349
While I'm for certain I'll be purchasing this laptop once I've acquired the funds to do so, I wonder about how well the Radeon 3650 handles some games, hence why I'd appreciate any of you lappy owners with the same GPU to provide me with real world performance info for Battlefield 2, BF2142, and Call of Duty 2 & 4. I have a pretty good idea of what to expect (BF2 should run perfect) however I'd like to alleviate some of my weariness, especially since later on I'd like to hook that laptop to an HDTV. Any answers would be appreciated

 

Not a bad price but you could probably get a DV5T for about the same which would have a better CPU and 9600M GT. Nothing in your price range will push any new-ish game at 1080p.

Ok I should not be so bold. You can probably push 1080p on some games at lower settings and manage ok FPS.

 

cod 4 runs well at 1280 x 800 with max settings geting like 20-50 fps
i think bf2 should run good too
itll play recent games at medium to high settings & medium resolution i have the ddr2 version, check youtube for videos

 

I can't directly comment on the specific gaming performance you will see with the ATI HD 3650, but I can offer some additional perspective on where it fits into the hierarchy of mobile GPUs....

The closest performance match from nVIDIA to the ATI 3650 are the nVIDIA GeForce 9500M GS and 9600M GS. The 3650 has slightly faster performance than the 9500M GS, but a little less than the 9600M GS. The 9500M GS and 9600M GS are successors to the previous generation 8600M GT, but both of the GS cards return slightly higher benchmark results than the 8600M. The AT 3650 also has higher benchmark numbers than the 8600M.

So, anything playable on the nVIDIA 8600M GT should be at least as good on the ATI Radeon HD 3650! The same is true of the 9500/9600M GS, anything playablle on those cards also should perform at least as well with the ATI HD3650.

As for the previous generation of ATI graphics cards- the HD 3650 slots in above the HD 2600 (but not the HD 2600XT) and is a close match for the HD 2700.

FYI- the HD 2700 can run COD4 at 1920x1200 at 88fps. The 512mb ATI HD 3650 should be perform almost identically.

 

Hey Tony A your avitar looks like a "Stealthed" version of my old aircraft the FB-111, is it

 

Well the reason I wonder is due to my knowledge of the 3650 having 8 TMUs and 4 ROPs as compared to the 8600GT having 16) TMUs and 8 ROPs, hence my predicament of knowing the [/I]real world performance, not a synthetic benchmark or predictions. I am aware of the 9600GTs margin of superiority but that superiority is for nought if the GPU is defective plus the Asus has other inherit benefits such as a much lower price than similarly capable Intel machines, 2 year parts and labor warranty as well as a 1 year accidental warranty. I'm sold already, especially at $899. Helps that it also has Express Gate, is 1440 x 900 resolution, has a keypad (remember it's a 15.4 in!). Reviews are good too. Lots of nice features for a good low price, plus I'm honestly kind of an AMD loyalist even if Intel has the best CPUs out currently. T'would be cool if I could enable Hyrid Crossfire between the 3650 and 3200 just for kicks and it's nice knowing I have a decent integrated GPU in case something actually happens to the main requiring me to use the 3200 as full time backup. Redundancy and lots of features!

 

There is no way (unless you mean 1920x1200 with settings way down)

Anyway, if you bring the settings somewhat a little and turn off a graphics setting or two, you can get 1280x800 30+ fps on CoD4, and that will be the most demanding game in your list.

 

I just purchased a toshiba P300 with the 3650, and I am fairly satisfied with it so far, although I have yet to try it out much.

With the latest patch and catalyst drivers, I can play Stalker shadow of Chernobyl at 1440x900 with high details, provided I run static shadows only and dial down some other features like distances etc. It get generally 40-75 fps like this, very smooth with the odd hiccup, but the game engine is a bit buggy. But it looks and runs great. With Dynamic shadows on it kills the FPS down to 10-30.

I've also played Gothic 3, runs much more poorly (15-30 fps native res and high) but that is definitely due to a ****-poor gaming engine.

I suspect HL2 would run full everything native res with high (>75) fps, episode one probably still pretty okay on high. Not sure about episode 2.

COD 4 might need a little dialing down, but should be able to run native res and medium setting and get decent fps. NOt sure where this 1080p business is coming from, doesn't that screen have 1280x800?

 

I can comment on the desktop version of the hd3650, I have the Gddr3 one, dont know how well that translate to notebooks. But I can do crysis on midium at 1024x768 (i know, but my monitor is 8 years old) at a stable 35fps. CoD4 maxed no AA at 30-50fps, GRID midium 40fps. hope that helps

 

I just bought this laptop yesterday:

I just ran 3Dmark06 (standard demo version) and got a score of: 3458 (without latest drivers/ oc etc.)

I will be testing some games today and tell you how it runs.

 

Ive heard the 3650 is somewhere between the 8600GT with DDR2 and DDR3 VRAM

 

the 3650 is just fine for me
It runs new games pretty well (cod4 60-80 fps medium)
Ut3 all high ~40-50 fps

Not a bad card imo, but several sites said it was ranked higher than the 8600?

 

yea definitely higher than the DDR2 one but not the DDR3, if anything itd be about even with the DDR3 8600GT

 

yea 3dmark06 wont really tell u how its gonna perform in the real world ull have to actually test some games for that.

 

Exactly, without testing them on actual games you don't know although I think you'd be fine.

 

The 3650 can play far cry 2 on high settings with medium shadows, I can get a stable fps of 15-30 fps which is playable. I am not sure if the processor is bottle necking the 3650's performance, but my cpu is the core duo 2 2.0ghz with a fsb of 667.

ME2K

 

Hi,

i have a Toshiba A300 1C9 ([email protected];4GB ram;Mobility radeon HD3650;640GB;.... ) and i have 4273 3DMarks06.