R300 vs R350

Goat_Guy · Dec 24, 2003, 11:57 PM

What is the true difference between the R300 and the R350? I mean, sure the R350 prob. has more transistors, but if you put an R300 and an R350 on the same card (and if magically worked), what would the difference be?

Brian

No_Style · Dec 25, 2003, 12:13 AM

Runs cooler? Cheaper to produce?

EnDlEsS · Dec 25, 2003, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goat_Guy
What is the true difference between the R300 and the R350? I mean, sure the R350 prob. has more transistors, but if you put an R300 and an R350 on the same card (and if magically worked), what would the difference be?

Brian

The R350 has a few tweaks to make the shader unit run faster. That's why the smartshader part of the R350 is 2.1 while is 2.0 for R300. Also, the R350 has a FIFO shaders buffer, the F-Buffer, which allow unlimited shader lengths. Furthermore, R350 is base on a more finetuned 0.15 process and allowed for higher clock speed.

~~craig588~~ · Dec 25, 2003, 04:29 PM

The only real world difference I notice with it is the clock speed boost. (And I have a r9700 and r9800 in 2 very similar computers sitting right next to each other)

When I drop them down to the same clocks I can't tell the difference between them. (Which is why I think smartshader 2.1 is just marketing)

The F buffer only allows a particular type of shader to have unlimited lenght, and in reality it probably wont be ued because devvers will want to stick with full DX9 compatability.

tastyweat · Dec 25, 2003, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by EnDlEsS
The R350 has a few tweaks to make the shader unit run faster. That's why the smartshader part of the R350 is 2.1 while is 2.0 for R300. Also, the R350 has a FIFO shaders buffer, the F-Buffer, which allow unlimited shader lengths. Furthermore, R350 is base on a more finetuned 0.15 process and allowed for higher clock speed.

Right on the money...

The R350 has optimised shader paths, and a tuned up AA + AF Engine.

It also is based upon a more finetuned 0.15 Micron process, allowing it to run at higher frequencies.

If you were to run an R350 vs R300 on the same card at same speeds and same memory

the differences would be noticable with DX9 shaders in process and when you are using AA and AF

Those are the differences.

For example, my 9700np has surpassed 9800pro speeds, and yet the performance in 3dmark 2003 is quite significantly off a pro (with the 9700np being R300 and 9800pro being R350). At 385MHz Core, 326MHz (Eff. 652MHz) The most I was able to bench was 5609, whereas a 9800pro at these speeds will surpass the 6k mark.

I am about to invest in a zalman heatpipe + fan for it and should be able to push it up to XT speeds

Goat_Guy · Dec 26, 2003, 12:49 AM

Right, becuase Im running my 9500np with a sofmod to the 9700 specs (256bit, 8 piplines), and have clocked it (stable in RTCW:ET) to 340\305, and got 5099 in 3dmark03. Hopefully with my new VGA silencer and some ram sinks, I will be able to reach 5500, with my $149 card and $20 worth of aftermarket cooling. I usually run my card with 2AA\4AF, nothing huge, but can run it on every setting high with no artifacts of any kind, and no times under 50fps. A sweet deal for $150. Brian