Monday, January 28th 2013

Gigabyte Intros Radeon HD 7750 Graphics Card with 2 GB DDR3 Memory

Gigabyte introduced a cost-effective Radeon HD 7750 graphics card, bearing the model number GV-R775D3-2GI. The card swaps out the standard 1 GB GDDR5 memory for 2 GB of DDR3 memory clocked at 1.60 GHz, which no doubt halves memory bandwidth while doubling the memory amount. The card is hence expected to be cheaper than its GDDR5 counterpart. The GPU is clocked at 800 MHz. The card uses a non-reference fan-heatsink with spirally-projecting aluminum fins that are ventilated by a large 100 mm fan. Display outputs include two DVI, and one each of HDMI (gold-plated connector) and D-Sub. The card is priced around $95, with a factory overclocked (850 MHz core, same memory) variant going for $100.
Add your own comment

39 Comments on Gigabyte Intros Radeon HD 7750 Graphics Card with 2 GB DDR3 Memory

#1
Dj-ElectriC
Obligatory "WTFSRSLY this is bullsh!t" comment about how dumb is the combination of 2GB and GDDR3 on a cheap graphics card.
Posted on Reply
#2
entropy13
Obligatory "obviously milking the ignorance of the average consumer" comment about how the use of 2GB RAM is a profit-driven scheme geared towards those who don't know any better.
Posted on Reply
#3
brian111
Would a reduction in ram save a significant amount? If not, "covering the bases" would be smart IMO.
Posted on Reply
#4
Sir Alex Ice
Unfortunately models with DDR3 will not sell well. In addition to the low performance, the price increase due to the increasing cost of the DDR3 memory will make these models even a worse choice.

Also, I should point out that 7750 with DDR3 have been sold since last year, with limited success, so this is not exactly breaking news.
Posted on Reply
#5
lastcalaveras
Meh umimpressed theres been a version from powercolor with 4GB
Posted on Reply
#6
Prima.Vera
This crap can barely play HD games without AA anyways. How the hell to maximize not 2GB but 1GB of VRAM in 1080p resolution without using AA or 16xAF anyways??
Posted on Reply
#7
Dj-ElectriC
It's easy, you let a few scumbags to convince people they need it.
Posted on Reply
#8
Ikaruga
Why some people can't understand that 2,3 or even 4GB DDR3 is good and makes sense for Photoshopping and for many other 2D and desktop publishing related works.
There are countless applications out there where only the amount of VRAM matters and the speed doesn't make much difference.
Posted on Reply
#9
RCoon
Forum Gypsy
by: Ikaruga
Why some people can't understand that 2,3 or even 4GB DDR3 is good and makes sense for Photoshopping and for many other 2D and desktop publishing related works.
There are countless applications out there where only the amount of VRAM matters and the speed doesn't make much difference.
About 100 average layers in photoshop barely use 1GB.
Architects and photographers use Macs for such things, and if you take a look at some of the latest Macs brought out, the video cards dont have a great deal of VRAM. It simply isnt needed.
Also, slow DDR3 RAM will not access those layers as fast as GDDR5 RAM.
Posted on Reply
#10
Ikaruga
by: RCoon
It simply isnt needed
Are you stuck at cs2 or something? GPU accelerated image manipulations (things as basic as accelerated rotation for example), and working with 3D effects/layers are all using VRAM in Photoshop since forever (CS4 or 5 iirc)

by: RCoon
Also, slow DDR3 RAM will not access those layers as fast as GDDR5 RAM.
I'm using Maya and XSI on a daily bases and - even there - is not always easy to detect the difference, let alone Photoshop (I tested it myself, and the slowdown was minimal at best).

Of course, I understand that manufacturers are only doing this the get rid of their DDR3 stocks, so I'm just saying there is a market and a place for such cards, that is all.
Posted on Reply
#11
RCoon
Forum Gypsy
by: Ikaruga
Are you stuck at cs2 or something? GPU accelerated image manipulations (things as basic as accelerated rotation for example), and working with 3D effects/layers are all using VRAM in Photoshop since forever (CS4 or 5 iirc)
CS 5.5 actually.
Posted on Reply
#12
Sir Alex Ice
You must realize that the number of people using Photoshop is an extremely small % of the total mass of potential buyers, right?
Posted on Reply
#13
Prima.Vera
I'm using GimpShop. Almost same as Photoshop with only 20% resources...
Ah, and is free. ;)
Posted on Reply
#14
Doc41
Why, why are they still using DDR3....... why do we have to suffer low performance at the expense of them saving a few $$$
Posted on Reply
#15
Ikaruga
by: Sir Alex Ice
You must realize that the number of people using Photoshop is an extremely small % of the total mass of potential buyers, right?
That might be true, but that doesn't mean there is no market for such cards.

Also, could you provide a citation please? Preferably a source which allows me to compare it to the number of people who buys high end gaming cards using GDDR5 memory. I'm curious because the number who use high end graphics accelerators with gddr5 isn't that big of a percentage (according to the latest survey ran on the gamer and - probably also enthusiast heavy- Steam userbase) and wouldn't be surprised if the desktop coverage of Photoshop would tail that percentage very closely (just pure speculation tho).
Posted on Reply
#16
RCoon
Forum Gypsy
by: Ikaruga
That might be true, but that doesn't mean there is no market for such cards.

Also, could you provide a citation please? Preferably a source which allows me to compare it to the number of people who buys high end gaming cards using GDDR5 memory. I'm curious because the number who use high end graphics accelerators with gddr5 isn't that big of a percentage (according to the latest survey ran on the gamer and - probably also enthusiast heavy- Steam userbase) and wouldn't be surprised if the desktop coverage of Photoshop would tail that percentage very closely (just pure speculation tho).
I think you'll find a high percentage of professional digital artists are using macs because industry tells them too. In which case, please refer to mac specs. I dont know very many professionals (which i do know just under a dozen) who build and upgrade their own computers.
Posted on Reply
#18
Ikaruga
by: RCoon
I think you'll find a high percentage of professional digital artists are using macs because industry tells them too. In which case, please refer to mac specs.
I said "desktop" and not "PC", so I meant workstations with whatever OS or brand.

by: RCoon
I dont know very many professionals (which i do know just under a dozen) who build and upgrade their own computers.
That's not really the case anymore (well not in Europe at least). People in The Netherlands love to have macs desktops here, and that's about it (imho). One of my income is that I build and maintain high end workstations. (Well it's not really rocket science and only happens once in a month, so it's more like a hobby, but I do have a great passion for it and I really love doing it).
I can tell you that Photoshop is everywhere and people are asking for high amount of video memory even on 2D workstations just because solely to have PS run better.
Posted on Reply
#20
Casecutter
Wow... It's not about gaming please! Is it a case of working on "ignorance of the un-informed consumer" somewhat? But step back from our gaming is only it… or it for Photoshop foxholes and look at the market.

There's a ton of OEM home-use Desktops that came with Intel HD2000 Clarkdale, Lynnfield, Sandy Bridge, GeForce 6150/7025 and 760G 880G, all such IGP’s are the stuff folks are considering they might benefit from a cheap up-grade (but at $95 this isn't cheap). They may not really need this much, it but there’s things an upgrade can ameliorate; accelerated video, an HDMI or DVI-D connector to run a new 24” monitor, or want to run dual displays. Sure they can use VGA on that new monitor but what the heck. Then there's getting off using regular (shared) system memory. Let’s say they’ve two slots filled with (if lucky) 4Gb; upgrade that to 8Gb... 16Gb? That’s the last place to put good money for those systems especially if DDR2. Sure it’s not going to help a lot, or be noticed in the seat of the pants, but I’d rather start with a discrete graphic’s. Now another big reason; lots of folk don’t want to jump on Win8 OS. They’re not comfortable and see the whole "Active Tiles" as not an easy transition. Sure they could classic shell, but those sitting at Staples, Costco, etc; they more than likely don’t know that as of yet. Willing to add a little life to their current machine makes them feel they’ve stretched that box another year or so.

I’m one for appreciating this the upgrade side of business, and how it benefits the industry and assists our side of it (components) to thrive. Do you want component manufactures not offering such bread and butter parts in the aftermarket, while OEM's that do offer them ask $150? Face it the enthusiast parts while beholding to OEM won’t fill the coffers enough to drive R&D! While they wouldn’t be releasing them if there wasn’t a market and profit. As folk hold on to something a little longer OEM builders need to lure folk with lower prices, and/or more tech for the buck. It’s good for the environment less folks dumping machines into the waste stream. I drop such of a Goodwill on the weekend and it one of a few place that take E-Waste and they had 5 big carts 3 with monitor and two with chassis. I ask how long those have been collecting he said that was about a week and he had more inside. If we don’t understand/accept such philosophies we only damn ourselves.

The issue I see that needs to be brought up with this is its TDP, with DDR3 is it lower that a DDR5? Normally 7750 are 55W, if this is OC where does it stand when many older IGP box's had 300W PSU’s. Gigabyte and AMD place a senseless PSU recommendation of 400W, and while most Dell, Lenovo, HP, Acers might provide the overhead to run this folk shy away because they see it an inflexible minimum not the "suggestion" it is. Always check with a PSU Calculator if 20-25% below the PSU rating you usually good. That said, if you’re on a 3-4 year old machine, a new solid PSU something like the Antec EarthWatts Green EA-380D Green or Corsair CX430 are smart considerations for their being 80 PLUS Bronze Certified and Active PFC.

The real problem is with an MSRP of $95... that's not waving any "cost-effective" banner, this needs to be like $60-65 working a $15-20 rebate better leveraging its lowly memory.
Posted on Reply
#21
u2konline
I stop paying attention to ddr3 cards a long time ago, not even sure why they keep wasting time making them. Just make gddr5 and be happy.
Posted on Reply
#22
Covert_Death
by: Doc41
Why, why are they still using DDR3....... why do we have to suffer low performance at the expense of them saving a few $$$
don't buy one and you won't suffer.... problem solved
Posted on Reply
#23
Prima.Vera
Agree, 2 slots, ddr3, and almost 100$. To damn expensive for its features...
Posted on Reply
#24
NdMk2o1o
I don't think 2GB of RAM is wasted on it, heck I remember seeing 2GB 9600GT's when the majority of monitors were 1280x720 or 1440x900 if you could afford "widescreen" of course and that's back when 1GB of DDR was $50, now that was a waste in all sense, though I think most cards should have 2GB nowadays as atsandard. 1GB is kinda weak in 2013 IMO
Posted on Reply
#25
ensabrenoir
What are you guy talking about? All this thing needs is some racing stripes and it'll rule the $100 sector :rolleyes: :roll:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment