• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

>> 7300GT 256mb GDDR3! <<

fenderbass86 said:
Well if you overclocked two of them in SLi it'll beat a single 7900GT!
Click to expand...

Thats true and not bad for a total cost of £102. I am hoping to play a lot of Oblivion and might still go with an ATI card.
 
Semiskimmed said:
afaik, 2 stock 7300gt's will still be more powerful than a stock 7900gt

id still LOVE to know where they are in the UK :(
Click to expand...


am i missing something here, theres two cards with 8 pipes , and a 7900gt has 24 pipes and overclocks pretty well too, how in the hell can two cards clocked similarly or lower with beat a single card that has 50% more pipes. that would also be in a game that uses sli well, a game that sli makes little difference, or doesn't work would obviously suck compared to the 7900.


as for the gddr3, i'm guessing that quite rightly gibbo is calling into question the need for 1.4Ghz mem when you're stuck on an 8 pipe not that fast core which simple can't pump fast enough to require really fast memory. the reason you need faster memory is for the memory to be able to push enough bandwidth simple as that, but the bandwidth is very easy to tell how much you need. the reason a x1800xl for instance with its way lower clocked memory was so much slower in higher resolutions(than a xt) was due to the resolution meaning more higher size of textures needing more bandwidth, if the bandwidth can't cover whats needed you get a lot of slowing down. however a 16 pipe high clocked core can run a game at 1600x1200 fine with decent settings. a 8 pipe lower clocked card simple can't, it won't play at resolutions with quality settings that push it to the point of needed that much bandwidth. gimmick, thats it.
 
Actually, the need for the higher speed memory probably comes from the 128-bit interface that the memory uses, at 1400mhz it's probably got as much bandwidth available to those 8 pipes as a 9800 would have had.

edit: this post is in reference to gibbo's post saying the 7300GT doesnt need GDDR3 memory, I Really wish I had quoted it now :o
 
Last edited:
err, 9800 had 256bit mem interface but mem ran at max speed of 450-500mhz.
so for 128bit interface to be equal in bandwidth it has to run the ram at 900-1000mhz.

so Voodle looks like you should do some research next time you decide to slap a 128bit memory interface.
 
Cyber-Mav said:
err, 9800 had 256bit mem interface but mem ran at max speed of 450-500mhz.
so for 128bit interface to be equal in bandwidth it has to run the ram at 900-1000mhz.

so Voodle looks like you should do some research next time you decide to slap a 128bit memory interface.
Click to expand...


Erm, thats exactly what he said Oo

9800pros ran at 350 (700ddr stock) on the memory and the 7300gt runs at 700 (1400ddr)
 
i don;t get what he is trying to say here.

the 9800 had similar bandwidth to the 6800nu. yet the 9800 was considerably slower.

is he saying that memory bandwidth is the be all and end all of performance?

how is it that a 6600gt which has far less bandwidth than the 9800xt manages to beat the crap out of the 9800?

whats this guy trying to say? will his 9800 be faster than a 7300gt cuz his card has 256bit memory interface. he should put his money where his mouth is if thats the case.
 
Cyber-Mav said:
err, 9800 had 256bit mem interface but mem ran at max speed of 450-500mhz.
so for 128bit interface to be equal in bandwidth it has to run the ram at 900-1000mhz.

so Voodle looks like you should do some research next time you decide to slap a 128bit memory interface.
Click to expand...

eh? I know the 9800 had a 256bit memory interface and that's exactly what I meant, it had a 680mhz ddr speed, giving it a bandwidth of around 22GB/s.
The 6600GT for example had 1000mhz ddr3 speed, with a 128bit bus, giving it 16GB/s potential bandwidth
Now the 7300GT has a ram speed of around 1400mhz and a 128bit bus, it has 22.4GB/s of theoretical peak bandwidth.

What's with the hostility? I was just pointing out that a 128bit bus can only transfer potentially half as fast as a 256bit bus, which is why having GDDR3 memory is so beneficial to the 7300GT

edit: oh god cyber-mav really I did not mean to inflame this little topic so much, I am aware that the 9800pro is a slow card these days, I dont even have one, I just wanted to make a point that memory bandwidth is important and that's why having GDDR3 on these 7300GTs makes them so much quicker.
Also where did I say the 9800pro was faster than a 6800nu in any way? the 6800nu did have fairly crippled memory bandwidth (imo) but it was faster because it has 12 pipelines rather than 8. I really dont get where the confusion is coming from here :(

edit more: you're right a 6600 IS faster than a 9800 of any type, perhaps the design of the pipelines is more efficient or there are other design improvements, but the real difference is that the 6600GT has a 500Mhz core clock speed while the 9800XT has ~400MHz core clock speed, of course it's going to be faster.
 
Last edited:
ahh, i see now where your comming from.

yea memory bandwidth is important, 256 having double that of 128bit at the same clock speed. (not taking latencey and overheads of the wider bus into account)

newer cards seem to have more efficient pixel processing techniques since they are not as much memory bandwidth limited as they are gpu limited, well that is all up to the point where the resolution is high enough for performance to be impacted by lack of memory bandwidth over pixel pushing power, or adding lots of AA to the scene will see bandwidth demands shoot up.

7300gt is a very well balanced card and has got bandwidth to spare, since super high rez or use of loads of AA will most likley hit its pixel throughput rate before its memory bandwidth limitation.

9800 was good in its days, far better than the FX line of cards and even better than some of ATi's own successors to the 9800, think the x550 or x600 and possibly x700 were slower than 9800.

i here where your comming from on the 6800 front too.

my 6800nu saw its biggest speed boost from when i overclock the ram on the card. at stock the card got somethig like 80fps in rthdribl, can't remember the exact figures but i remember the increase in performance from the changes i made.

right: 6800nu in rthdribl
stock 12/5 325/700 = 78fps
unlocked 16/6 325/700 = 85fps
unlocked and clocked 390/700 = 89fps
unlocked and clocked 390/835 = 101fps

increasing the ram speed gave it the biggest boost in speed. although that was probably cuz rthdribl is a different kind of test than 3dmark which puts more strain on the core rather than the memory.

also the 6800nu was crippled with only 128mb of ram when it could have benefited from 256mb.

these days its more gpu hammering in newer games, until the rez or AA is slapped up.
 
no_1_dave said:
Not quite:

http://www.pcmoddingmy.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.374.4

Maybe heavily overclocked its 3dMark06 score may match a 7800 GT though, wouldnt beat a 7900 GT...
Click to expand...


Not bad over 9k in 05. Thats more than a stock X1800XT and a stock 7900GT.

They do even better on the real gaming benchmarks as well! I think its on fear where the SLI cards are roughly twice as fast as a single 6800GS. Not too bad for budget cards.



oc3.jpg
:eek: Only 35 points shy of 10k!!!


Futher EDIT:

Reading more into that link above one of their team using a pencil vmod took the core to 820mhz! Scoring 6.3k in 05 and over 14k in 03. Not bad at all!

normal_05_820_796_VG1.9.jpg


Please note I have linked the image as the forum/ site has ads to other uk computer stores.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom