Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HD 3650 upgrade or not ?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a c 130 U Graphics card
May 8, 2008 9:33:52 AM


Hi guys, I have a second PC in the spare room and the kids use it for games homework watching DVD's etc.
specs are as follows.
Athalon 3000+
1 Gig Ram
X1650XT
PSU is generic.
I have looked at some review charts and they all say that the 3650 uses less power than the XT yet they recomend 550 Watt PSU with 30 AMPS ?? I know they like to margine for error but thats mad right?
Anyway the Question is, Is it worth putting a 3650 in to the rig for the HD aspect of the thing and if so will it perform any worse/ better in games under DX9.
in the spare room and the kids use it for games home work watching DVD's etc.
Thanks
Mactronix

More about : 3650 upgrade

May 8, 2008 12:21:41 PM

I highly doubt a 3650 on the 55nm process needs even 400 W.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2008 1:25:22 PM

I wouldn't expect more performance out of it though vs a X1650XT while paired with the single core 3000+.
a c 130 U Graphics card
May 8, 2008 2:01:42 PM

pauldh said:
I wouldn't expect more performance out of it though vs a X1650XT while paired with the single core 3000+.


Its not for performance its more the HD thing. I only put the bit in about performance out of curiosity, I know that some of the DX10 cards dont do so well at DX9 as they do DX10 and I dont want to get lynched next time one of the kids plays something and finds its gone down hill. :) 
I mean it is a better card but how much better I dont really know, on a line through a 1950 pro which is similar to a 2600xt which the 3650 is replacing and beats in some benchmarks then its at least as good as either of those.
But according to Toms hierarchy chart the 1950 pro is two tiers above the 2600xt which is on the same tier as the 3650.
So either the 2600XT is being overhyped or Toms has its charts in a mess again ?
Anyway as I said the main thing is the HD and as long as the performance in DX9 wont go down hill I think its probably worth a go.(I think) :) 
Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2008 3:09:59 PM

I think it would be a solid card gaming without fsaa. Should be more powerful than the X1650XT. It should consume less power than the X1650XT too, not even needing a power cable attached. So I wouldn't let either of those concerns stop you.
a c 130 U Graphics card
May 8, 2008 4:37:46 PM

pauldh said:
I think it would be a solid card gaming without fsaa. Should be more powerful than the X1650XT. It should consume less power than the X1650XT too, not even needing a power cable attached. So I wouldn't let either of those concerns stop you.


Yea pretty much what i figured thanks for the replys, just wanted to check if there were any issues with them in DX9 really.
Thanks for the replys
Mactronix

May 24, 2008 10:41:53 AM

mactronix said:

Anyway the Question is, Is it worth putting a 3650 in to the rig for the HD aspect of the thing and if so will it perform any worse/ better in games under DX9.
in the spare room and the kids use it for games home work watching DVD's etc.
Thanks
Mactronix


It's a good card for a kid's PC, or for an HTPC. The only "drawback" is that it doesn't do hybrid Crossfire on a 780G board (only the 3450 and 3470 work for that).

It's what I have in my wife's PC right now while we're waiting for the 4850 to be released. I almost got a 3850 for that PC but cancelled it because the 4850 was announced the next day. So I got the cheap DDR2 3650 instead.

Great performance for HD under Windows Media Center 2005 and decent 1280 x 1024 performance in games at medium settings. If you plan on keeping it for awhile in the spare PC, then get a DDR3 version instead.




May 24, 2008 12:06:59 PM

3650 if you are using it for hd video, but if you want somehtign for gaming on them low level grab a 8600gt, sure, they were horrid cards when they first came out and stuff, but they are cheap now and probably perform a little better tha the 3650, correct me if im wrong, i have a feelign i am.
May 28, 2008 6:57:28 AM

I still think it depends on the game as to whether the 3650 or 8600 is better. Plus we do video in addition to games, so the 3650 is a good stopgap until 4850 or 4870 in the fall.

Mactronix might want to consider an 8600, but he mentioned video as well as light gaming for the kids. I built two almost identical systems recently for my son and for my niece and nephew, the only difference is my son has a 500 watt Antec Truepower Trio PSU:

Athlon X2 4600+
ASUS 780G motherboard (HDMI capable)
Seagate 250 SATA
Sony DVD ROM
Pioneer DVD-RW
2 gigs Kingston DDR2 667
Sapphire 3650 DDR2

The 3650 is a stopgap that will get replaced with a 4850 come Christmas, and I'll have to replace the power supply in my niece and nephew's PC later too, as it has a legacy Cooler Master Real Power 450 with only 22 amps on the 12 volt rail. Though Cooler Master PSU's aren't the best, this is one that was rated tier 3 a few years ago and I used it for 2 years in my old P4. So, it's held up fine.

It won't play Crysis on high, but at their ages, they're into Fate (10+) and Guitar Hero. Most of their game playing is on consoles (except my son's really gotten into older CRPG's like Icewind Dale).

Basically, I was aiming close to what AMD recommends for their first tier gaming system. My wife's used to me building all our PC's but my sister in law's more used to name brand PC's like Gateway, so sticking close to AMD's vetting of name brand mainstream gaming box's was a good idea.

I could then show her this article with a caveat that it would need to be updated every couple of years:

http://www.dailytech.com/AMD+GAME+Tries+to+Make+Buying+...

As for the guy's reply comment about logo'd PC's sitting around for two years and not playing the next WoW, I doubt that that game (or any MMORPG) will change all that much, and we've found that LOTR Online, while looking better with a 3870x2, still looks good with a 3650. In fact, we tried it out with my wife's 690G integrated video on low settings and it didn't look any worse than Morrowind, which we still play.

Only the most popular single player RTS, FPS and CRPG's ever push the envelop where graphics is concerned. MMORPG's are designed for a wider appeal, and that's why game developers have a right to be upset at Intel integrated graphics as the most common GPU's in PC's bought from big box store PC's.

So, AMD's Game! is a step in the right direction. Nvidia should do something similar. Intel's a lost cause unless Larabee works out a few years from now.
!