Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

HD 3650 Vs 8600 GT?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Games
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics Cards
August 18, 2008 5:29:00 PM

Im getting my brother a graphics card for his upcoming birthday This friday, im trying to decide between a HD3650 or an 8600gt, cause of his PSU.

I looked at benchmarks for both cards they perform the same depending on the game.

They both can run crysis well at low resolutions 800x600-1024x768, i even seen some videos of ppl running crysis on high.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh6gqETwCyI


But i cannot decide between the 8600gt or the HD 3650.

We plan on playing games like Age of conan, WoW,and a couple other single player games. Nothing to intense, Quality over Qaunity

More about : 3650 8600

August 18, 2008 5:45:50 PM

just add a couple of dollars and get a 3850....

it will last a lot longer then any of those two.
August 18, 2008 5:54:45 PM

dwe_khal said:
just add a couple of dollars and get a 3850....

it will last a lot longer then any of those two.



His psu is like 300~ watts, it cant handle anything that requires extra power thru 6 pin cables.



Related resources
a c 131 U Graphics card
August 18, 2008 8:57:58 PM


I vote the 3650 is the better card. The 3650 is a direct replacement for and is slightly better than the 2600XT. which is in the same performance grouping as the 1950 PRO and the 8600GTS. So it follows that the 8600GT wont be as good. Which it isnt.

Mactronix :) 
August 18, 2008 9:16:19 PM

Very similar cards performance wise but I say go with 3650
August 18, 2008 10:07:56 PM

Heya,

I would say that buying a low end card for cheap as a way to improve gaming is kind of like crippling at the same time as upgrading because while his video card gets better, the rest of his PC is still back where it was, and it will limit what that fancy new card can do (be it the CPU or buss that limits how much can be fed to the card fast enough). If you have to play hard games at 800x600, you need more than a videocard upgrade. At that res, most games are necked by the CPU.

I would suggest you get a solid but cheap PSU with the right connections for a better card. And I would suggest for the money, to get the 8800gt 512. You can get them for like $100. The PSU will only cost like $30~50.

Very best,
August 18, 2008 11:46:55 PM

your suggestion beat the purpose of the beginnig of your post. If he is CPU limited at 800x600 and doesn't get good frame rate at this resolution, there is no way a new PSU and a better GFX will make it better at higer res. His CPU still have at least as much load to handle no matter the resolution.

Unless his game are currently GPU limited at 800x600, then a new one won't help all that much.

Listing the complete spec of the currect setup wold help find what really deserve an upgrade the most.
August 19, 2008 12:41:22 AM

frostys said:
your suggestion beat the purpose of the beginnig of your post. If he is CPU limited at 800x600 and doesn't get good frame rate at this resolution, there is no way a new PSU and a better GFX will make it better at higer res. His CPU still have at least as much load to handle no matter the resolution.

Unless his game are currently GPU limited at 800x600, then a new one won't help all that much.

Listing the complete spec of the currect setup wold help find what really deserve an upgrade the most.



His Cpu isnt limited to 800x600, i was giving a brief description of the Card's performance.

He doesnt mind using low resolutions, seeing as he games with a integrated video card i just want to help him out with out spending too much.

he has a good amount of ram, a decent dual core Processor from AMD and i dunno if anything else matters but he has 1 pci express x16 slot.
a c 412 U Graphics card
August 19, 2008 1:28:37 AM

I would actually buy a nVidia 8600GTS if it is about the same price as a Radeon 3650. It consumes about 6w (that's 0.5 amps) more power, but can offer up to 20% better performance (depending on the game), and at worst it will be marginally faster (1 or 2 fps).



Here's the review with benchmarks from 16 different games:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/msi-hd3650.html
August 19, 2008 1:42:29 AM

jaguarskx said:
I would actually buy a nVidia 8600GTS if it is about the same price as a Radeon 3650. It consumes about 6w (that's 0.5 amps) more power, but can offer up to 20% better performance (depending on the game), and at worst it will be marginally faster (1 or 2 fps).

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video/msi-hd3650/rhd3650_power.gif

Here's the review with benchmarks from 16 different games:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/msi-hd3650.html




That is a great site, but they are using FSAA at 1280x1024 That made the 3650 look like crap.

But yea thank you for the help, 3650 looks pretty good
August 19, 2008 12:31:05 PM

Keep in mind that there are two very common, yet very different, versions of the 8600 GT floating about; there is the standard 8600 GT with GDDR memory clocked to 1400 MHz, and then there's a version that uses only DDR2, clocking it to a mere 800 MHz, once an OEM-only model that appears to have also been called the 8600 GS at times. Obviously, this slower-clocked card performs significantly worse. The way I'd lay it out for this range of cards, in terms of performance, is:

GeForce 8600 GTS > GeForce 8600 GT GDDR3 > Radeon 2600 XT > Radeon 3650 > Radeon 2600 pro > GeForce 8600 GT DDR2
From the top to the bottom, you're looking at what is probably approaching a 2 to 1 performance ratio; that is, that the 8600 GTS is nearly twice as potent as the DDR2 version of the 8600 GT.
mactronix said:
I vote the 3650 is the better card. The 3650 is a direct replacement for and is slightly better than the 2600XT. which is in the same performance grouping as the 1950 PRO and the 8600GTS. So it follows that the 8600GT wont be as good. Which it isnt.

Actually, while made as a replacement for the 2600 series, the 3650, due to having no real performance-related architectural advantages over the 2600XT while having lower clock speeds, it almost always performs slightly WORSE. Its main advantages were that it consumes less power and ran cooler, as well as costing AMD slightly less money to make. (oh, and DX 10.1 support, whatever use THAT might have...)