ddr2 vs. ddr3 8600m gt

I was reading a thread from 5 or 6 months ago and it said that the ddr3 is about 40% faster playing a certain game (I think it was counter strike at MAX settings) and I was wondering if it is FEASIBLE to overclock the ddr2 to match the ddr3.

 

No, the clock speeds of the ddr3 are 475 core, 700 mem, I think, and the clock speeds of the ddr2 are 475 core, 400 mem. I can only get my memory up to 500ish before it becomes unstable, and the highest I've ever seen is 525-540ish. So it's not even close, and that's before you overclock the ddr3 at all.

 

ViperYourMother, you are seriously misinformed. The memory clock of the ddr3 card is not comparable to the memory clock of the ddr2 card. For example, I can easily beat the ddr3 card at stock settings with my ddr2 card at 650/512, which I get around 4500 3DMark06.

 

While you can't overclock the memory to run at the same speeds as the DDR3, through a combination of core and memory overclocks you should be able to exceed the actual performance of a stock DDR3 8600GT. The DDR3 version also overclocks very well, however.

 

Thanks for the info.

I'll be looking into overclocking my ddr2 8600m gt.

 

why dont u get more ram i just got 4gb of ram in my laptop with a 8600m gs, 256mb ddr2 2048 mb turbocache gpu and there wss no real performance diffrence in regular profram from the 2gb of ram. but when it comes to games i get a 5-15 (that i know so far ) fps in my games.

 

Very Good Answer. I second that - +1 Rep

 

Even with the overclocked GDDR3 8600m GT's your overall real-world performance difference amounts to about 10-15% when talking frames per second (i.e. 1 frame better for every 10). So in most cases if you're running 30fps or better already, the extra 3fps won't matter too much. But running from 23 and improving 25 or 26 may push you over that threshhold of "acceptable". Either way, I played through Crysis just fine @ 1280x800 so it didn't matter much.

 

u can run CCS on max settings anyway with a non OC'd 8600m GT DDR2 without a single framedrop.

The difference between the 256mb DDR2 and 256mb DDR is pretty much tbh. yes u can OC the DDR2 to the max and run as fast maybe slightly faster then a stock DDR3 but the GPU gets really hot and stable at max OC? Not really if u ask me. The DDR3 version is better overclockable and very stable even when overclocked to the max, at least in my notebook.

 

Okay, I admit that I've never seen the benches for a DDR2 vs. DDR3, so I just assumed it was higher with the extra memory speed. For example, I get an increase of over 900 3DMarks (I know, I know, synthetic) overclocking from 475/950/400 to 621/1242/500, so I thought that the increased memory speed would have it even higher.

I was an idiot though and didn't even think about the difference in overclocking both the core and memory speeds. :confused2: Although I'm guessing an oc'd DDR3 would still beat an oc'd DDR2 . . . does anyone have the benches for an oc'd DDR3?

 

brkhobowriter, 1500 points from the standard clocks? I don't believe that. That's 8700M GT territory.
A standard DDR3 card would get 3800 - 3900 points in 1280 * 1024 (the standard resolution), while a normal DDR2 card would get around 3000 points. That's at least 800 points from the start.

 

Keep in mind most people seem to be benching 3dmark06 at 1280x800 these days, why...well I don't know, especially when they can run it at the standard 1280x1024.

But either way, I just assume that any 3dmark scores sounding out of wack (like in this case) were run at a lower resolution

 

Maybe 800 * 600, as I don't believe that you can 1500 points extra. That's 50% more from the standard score. Seems impossible to me.

 

Probably cos a lot of the Vostro / Inspirons that have the DDR2 version have screens that are 1200x800 or 1440x900. Neither of which can run 3Dmark at 1280x1024. And most people can't be bothered then to connect to an external display just to bench at a higher res.

 

And yes alot of people are benching in 1280x800.. so am i.. some say its not fair but it is.. it's the native res and that's the res where u will be gaming in.. u mostly benchmark 3dmark to test your gaming performance so the people that measure the performance they will get while gaming.. If your res is higher and u use that for gaming that that's is your performance in your res.. to me that sounds more logical to go test your game performance in a res you are not going to play with

 

Oh yeah I know, I don't have a problem with people running 3dmark06 at 1280x800, provided they state they did. Hell, even if someone's native res is higher and they run it at 1280x800, I don't mind, as long as they say so.

It's the dudes who run it at a lower res, don't tell anyone, then jump all over the place bragging about their ub3r l33t scores and O/C power that annoy me

 

5900 points on a 8600M GT? granted, 1280x800, but WOW man...that`s OCin the crap out of the card

 

I hope you mean without maxing out AA and AF.

With those maxed out, source can make a baby out of your card.

 

Just got my XPS m1530 and ran 3dmark06 on factory settings at 1440x900 resolution.

Specs:
Core 2 Duo T5450
1 GB ram
8600m gt DDR3
120GB Hard Drive

3DMARK06: 3725

Low 3DMARK even from my specs?

 

Thanks Jeezer, that's quite a bit more than my 4,558 3DMarks on my overclocked DDR2 8600M GT. At 1280x800. And I'm one of those that bench it at 1280x800, because that's my native resolution, and I can't be bothered to hook it up to an external just to bench.

 

No problem..! I must say i had it tweaked for max performance but very stable and no excessive heat production, very nice

And for the other question yea i mean without AA maxed srry.. AA on x2 or x4 for those.. personally i like x2 the most, it looks better.

 

If you read it again, you can see that I got that score at 650/512 clocked at 1280 x 1024.