Just purchased a Sapphire HD 3650 512MB

z0mbi3 · 5 Feb 2008 at 15:53

I just purchased a Sapphire HD 3650 512MB. I know this is a budget card but it seemed to be like the right step away from my power hungry x1900 xt, with not too much of a performance difference (at least not per watt).

Anyway I noticed that this is a cheap card and I'm confused as to why.

What do you reckon? Is it being mis-priced or have I missed something really obvious?

Neal · 5 Feb 2008 at 15:55

seems about right that price, seen them for around that give or take a £.

careful mentioning comp prices though.... might get ya wrist slapped.

willhub · 5 Feb 2008 at 15:58

I think its against the rules to even mention competitor pricing.

Richdog · 5 Feb 2008 at 16:02

You might have bought the DDR2 version and not the DDR3.

z0mbi3 · 5 Feb 2008 at 16:03

Is there a huge difference between the DDR2 & 3 versions then? Looks like I got a 2.

Richdog · 5 Feb 2008 at 16:06

z0mbi3 said:
Is there a huge difference between the DDR2 & 3 versions then? Looks like I got a 2.

DDR2 cards are generally a bit/much slower than the DD3 versions, and generally far less overclockable.

z0mbi3 · 5 Feb 2008 at 16:07

Ah well, this purchase was definitley more about power consumption than performance anyway.

Cyber-Mav · 5 Feb 2008 at 17:21

ddr2 consumes more power than ddr3

Lightnix · 5 Feb 2008 at 17:47

Way to rub it in.

oh yeah...

z0mbi3 · 5 Feb 2008 at 18:36

Lightnix said:
Way to rub it in.

oh yeah...

Not really, 512 mb is a must.

Ender · 5 Feb 2008 at 20:40

z0mbi3 said:
Not really, 512 mb is a must.

Not really, the ddr2 wont be able to take advantage of the higher amount of memory due to the too slow speed of it i would have thought- plus 512mb comes into its own on high resolution games- and I dont think it can cope at those resolutions anyway ?

willhub · 5 Feb 2008 at 20:44

512mb really is a must, even at 1280x1024 256mb cards can start to struggle.

z0mbi3 · 6 Feb 2008 at 00:16

Ender said:
Not really, the ddr2 wont be able to take advantage of the higher amount of memory due to the too slow speed of it i would have thought

Sounds like bull poo to me.

Ender said:
- plus 512mb comes into its own on high resolution games- and I dont think it can cope at those resolutions anyway ?

Doesn't have to be current games, although I'm sure tf2 and the like would take advantage of it regardless of res (ok it won't help much at stupidly high resolutions but still). If Quake 4 and Doom 3 can benefit from the extra texture memorly then I'm sure other games between then and now can too.

willhub said:
512mb really is a must, even at 1280x1024 256mb cards can start to struggle.

I'm with this guy

Richdog · 6 Feb 2008 at 07:59

512MB IS a must... as games are reelased they get increasingly complex in terms of detail and shaders, and 256MB would be chewed up in a flash, even at 1280*1024.

z0mbi3 · 7 Feb 2008 at 13:49

Well it's arrived. Lovely small card, can't wait to give it a spin tonight.

phatboy · 10 Feb 2008 at 11:37

let us know how it does in games / benchies etc mate, no one has realy mentioned them yet.

LoadsaMoney · 10 Feb 2008 at 11:48

willhub said:
512mb really is a must, even at 1280x1024 256mb cards can start to struggle.

Agreed, had a 320mb GTS at that res, ended up having to turn some details down in games, could use no more than 2xAA, and when newer games came out, having to do all that and knock the res down to 1280x960 (non native).

jaykay · 10 Feb 2008 at 11:55

What about the 128bit bus?
Will that be ok for 512mb?

pastymuncher · 11 Feb 2008 at 12:14

Have you got it installed yet? Is it any good? Quiet or noisy?

Egosh · 11 Feb 2008 at 16:39

also interested in this..how much better is it than a x800xl?

looked for the charts on tomshardware but couldnt find one comparing this card and my x800xl..could someone link me please..