Is Radeon 4670 1GB version faster than 512MB version?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

deenace

Posts: 17   +0
I have heard that radeon 4670 is equivalent to geforce 9600GSO/8800GS.
But here in my country gfx cards are too expensive. Only the choice for me is to buy msi r4670-2d1g which is a 1gb version or Geforce GT240 512mb ddr3 so i want to know that is there any difference between 4670 1gb and GT240 512mb ddr3 , if there is, then which one is faster and by how much!!!:confused:

though 1gb has lower mem. clk. but does that make it slower than gt240 .The other available options are geforce 9800gt, radeon 4850, radeon 4890....etc. but these card need a bulky psu which my system lags.

so i am in need of an advice that which one is faster between these two:MSI radeon 4670 1gb or geforce gt240(which is 512mb ddr3)

BTW i have Samsung T220 22" monitor.

THnx in advance.
 
Overall the GeForce 9600 GSO is a little bit faster than the Radeon 4670, but not by much. So its all about your personal choice & price difference between the two in your part of the woods.
 
the gt 240 is faster overall but not by much its around the same as the 9600 gt but i find that it is overpriced vs the performance it gives.
 
having 1Gb of memory on a low/mid card like the 4670 is of no use whatsoever. in fact the extra half gb of memory actually can slightly slow the performance of these lower end cards. the large memory is only useful on the more powerful cards at high resolutions (1920 x 1080 and 2560 x 1600) for frame buffer. save the extra $$$ and get the 512gb version.
 
that's what I mean, the 1gb version of the 4670 will not be at all faster....and may be slightly slower.
 
red's advice is very logical as the slower/or more crippled (in case of nVidia specially) GPU's of lower end products struggle to utilize/fill the frame buffer to the maximum. Beside, as these are targeted for lower mainstream/entry level; their targeted resolution is lower as well; hence the additional RAM just sits there; its like an diesel engine you know you have lots of torques, but they are all located at the higher end of revs range ;)
 
I'd choose 512 MB of GDDR3 over 1GB of GDDR2. I have no idea why, I just would. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

I don't even game, so I don't care one way or the other. But I get a vote just the same. Ain't democracy grand...?

Actually, the throughput (memory bandwidth) of GDDR-3 is much higher. (Than GDDR2)
Archean said:
....[ ]....the additional RAM just sits there; its like an diesel engine you know you have lots of torques, but they are all located at the higher end of revs range ;)
Click to expand...
Just let me get my hip boots and shovel, I'll be with you in a minute. :rolleyes:
 
red1776 said:
that's what I mean, the 1gb version of the 4670 will not be at all faster....and may be slightly slower.
Click to expand...
thank you so much for your response red1776 but i want to know that between radeon 4670 1gb and geforce gt240 512mb(which is gddr3) which one will be faster..
 
Archean said:
red's advise is very logical as the slower/or more crippled (in case nVidia specially) GPU's of lower end products struggle to utilize/fill the frame buffer to the maximum. Beside, as these are targeted for lower mainstream/entry level; their targeted resolution is lower as well; hence the additional RAM just sits there; its
Click to expand...
You were doing fine to here. But not so well from here
Archean said:
like an diesel engine you know you have lots of torques, but they are all located at the higher end of revs range ;)
Click to expand...
However, in a Diesel engine, they don't have "torques" nor to they measure "torques", they measure "torque". This is a cumulative measurement of the engine's rotational force, and its ability to resist force applied against it. That in mind, a Diesel engine produces its maximum torque in the lower portion of its RPM range. That's why they're used mostly in >>TRUCKS<< >>>BUSES<<< and last but not least >> LOCOMOTIVES.....! Um, er, to like get them moving in the first place.

It would seem that your noob groupies were unable to discern the correct answer from my "literary stylings" The correct answer; (at least when added with some other responses in this thread).
captaincranky said:
Actually, the throughput (memory bandwidth) of GDDR-3 is much higher. (Than GDDR2)
Click to expand...

If we were to compare this to a physical system, it might go something like this; "Memory bandwidth is roughly comparable to the gut transit time of food. High density foods, such as "steak and eggs", have a long time to travel through the intestines. Foods that digest more easily and are high in fiber, have a much more rapid digestion, elimination cycle.

In this respect GDDR2 could be compared to the ":steak and eggs", and "Metamucil" could be compared to GDDR3 . No sense in holding it all in and makin' yourself sick, that's what I always say
 
Ah thankyou for correction Captain, I thought I typed the word 'power' but instead it turns out i mistyped it as 'torque'. Anyway, thanks again and deenace GT240 is marginally better as red pointed out; including power consumption :)
 
Thank you very much guys. Now i would go for gt240 though i m looking forward for 9800gt green edition(doesnt require external power connector).
 
dont get the green edition of the 9800 gt its crap for gaming also i told u at the top of the page that the 240 was faster hmm guess my post was overlooked
 
your post want overlooked klepto. Sure i would go for 240 but just wanted to make that, is green edition of 9800 than that becoz i m getting both cards at the same price.

thanks for your precious advice klepto,red,archean,captaincranky,and all others....
 
More frame buffer (i.e. memory) really comes into play at higher resolutions, so if you are playing at rather lower resolutions/medium details etc. you should be able to play most modern games. Here is review of your card rob, that should help you as well.
 
rob101391 said:
Listen i have a XFX Radeon HD 5670 512MB can it play the same games as a 1gb version?
Click to expand...

having a GB of memory on a card of that capability is worthless. they put the extra memory on them as a marketing gimmick and sales tool. The 1 gb of memory on them can actually slow them down slightly in a few instances. They simply do not push enough data through to take advantage of the extra frame buffer. see for yourself.
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3112/ati_radeon_hd_5670_512mb_video_card/index.html
 
Red i have a 4670 1GB DDR3 and I play games in 1920*1080.
I was thinking about buying the 5670 512mb DDR5. Does this make sense? Why?
In this case de 1GB model could make a difference?
 
Hi tatu,
the short answer is no. the 5670 does not have enough capability to take advantage of having an extra 512mb of memory either. here is a couple of examples of that. just a couple of thoughts here. if you are getting the 5670 for the DX 11 capabilities, you may want to to bump up to the 5750 or 5770. the 5670 doesn't have the computing horsepower to be able to take full advantage of DX11, especially as you like to game at 1920 x 1080.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/01/14/ati-radeon-hd-5670-review/1
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3112/ati_radeon_hd_5670_512mb_video_card/index6.html
 
Thanks, for the answers. My budget is quite limited and here in my country to buy a good power supply is really expensive, that's why i'll buy the 5670 512mb, probably it wont be enough to play at 1920*1080 so i'll have to decrease the resolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Scorpus
AMD's latest Radeon is the RX 7600 XT: double the VRAM for $330
Replies
16
Views
431
manowar51
M
Scorpus
Nvidia app launches in beta: Nvidia's new GPU control panel is much faster, no log in...
2
Replies
28
Views
575
RaXelliX
R
Scorpus
  • Locked
Is AMD finally targeting Nvidia? Radeon RX 7800 XT & RX 7700 XT launch details, FSR 3,...
2 3 4
Replies
87
Views
3K
Puiu
Puiu

Latest posts

Back