Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7900GT or x1800XT

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 8, 2006 7:41:55 PM

I've been a long time Toms Hardware reader and have recently been reading alot of the Forums too. but in all reading i havent really found a definitive responce to whether to get the 7900GT or the x1800XT.

Curretnly my specs look like this:

3.6 P4 (560)
1 gig Kingston value ram
P5GDC deluxe MB
gigabyte 6600GT

i Built my system around a year ago, but now my graphics cant keep up with even FEAR, so ive decided to upgrade, and what with Tax checks on the way, i figure this is as good a time as any :D 

Another thing that ive seen alot of people write is that if your an overclocker get the 7900GT if not get the x1800xt. i have a Zalmann Fatal1ty VGA cooler that ill be using on either when i finally decide. Also i know that knowing what games ill be playing makes a difference. Mialny im upgrading so that i can play FEAR at more than VGA res, play DOOM3 and HL2 again on higher settings, oblivion, Quake 4 and Condemned PC, which should have similar requirements as FEAR.

Now i know everyone will just tell me to go look at the sticky thread, but it has them in a tie for that price class. and sadly toms doesnt have both to compare in a single review. So i ran over to VR-Zone where they did. And i noticed some trends, that the on almost all the games the 7900GT would be ahead in frames on 10x7 and 12x10 but it would lose in the 16x12 settings, though this doesn't make anysense to me cause thats when i would think that the extra pipelines of the 7900GT would really shine through?

This is obvious in Fear: http://sg.vr-zone.com/?i=3335&s=14

If i get the 7900gt i would be willing to do the 1.55 voltage mod and id install the zalmann VGA coooler to keep it cool. But do you guys think that the increase from the overclock would allow it to keep up with x1800XT in the higher res? and on the games it wins outiright on all res? And how well does the x1800XT overclock? because i will be installing the zalmann fan on it too.

I've always been a huge nVidia fan, but for this purchase im really doing my research so that i can get the best card for my money. i know the x1800 XT i can get a 512 version for only a little more than the 256 7900GT. But yeah what do you guys all think? i would apreciate any contructive comments, preferably no "Get the X1800XT!!!" a small explanation would be cool to go along with it. Thanks ahead of time.


First post by SoupRKnowva

More about : 7900gt x1800xt

April 8, 2006 8:12:24 PM

x1800xt is better. Now the 7900GT is a pretty good card but it's way overrated and that's due to the tons of people that waited for a 7800gt replacement. The card wasn't worth all the hype.
X1800xt should be your main target if your aiming performance.
Now heat wise, the 7900GT is better. I'm telling that because in some(quite rare) P4 have severe heat problems so if that's your case, go 7900GT so you don't heat the interior of the case even more.
April 8, 2006 8:30:37 PM

One thing i forgot to put inot my first post was about Image Quality....Mnay people are saying that ATi cards have higher IQ..what does everyone mean by that?...
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 8, 2006 9:07:32 PM

The game will simply look better.
And ATI cards handle high levels of AA and aniso better.
Nvidia cards usually come up with an unbeatable price performance and a faster play but it's not the case here.
Note that from 6xxx towards NV cards used 3.0 SM, while ATI were stuck with 2.0 b untill the 1xxx release. So we can saay NV is usually ahead in technology.
April 8, 2006 9:24:21 PM

So like more vivid colors?...cause ive never noticed any like grainyness to my current 6600GT as compared to my neighbors x1600 pro....and i know why the x1900xt does better on oblivion cause its got 48 pixil shaders, but the x1800xt does not, so why does it still outperform the 7900gt on shader heavy titles?

And i got links to the four cards im looking at. Witht the 1800, is it worth it to go for the 512 over the 256 even with the $50 price dif?...and i found that the x1900xt is you get one thats refurbished you can get it for under 400...

x1900xt - Powercolor $398.68
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

x1800xt 512 - Sapphire $349.00
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

x1800xt 256 - Sapphire $289.00 - 20.00 MIR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

7900GT 256 - BFG $329.00
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...


So far you guys are a great help, thanks
April 8, 2006 9:43:35 PM

X1800 XT.
April 8, 2006 9:44:52 PM

Quote:
And i got links to the four cards im looking at. Witht the 1800, is it worth it to go for the 512 over the 256 even with the $50 price dif?...and i found that the x1900xt is you get one thats refurbished you can get it for under 400...


If you buy a refurb, you just might get what you paid for.
April 9, 2006 1:08:37 AM

I would say the X1800XT 512 MB, because the extra memory will help in future games with more complex graphics and the like. It is also better at shader-heavy titles, and I think FEAR is touted as one of those. BF2 is not so much shader-intensive, as not many things like huge explosions and particle effects happen all the time. With any aftermarket cooler, noise level should be the same for both cards, so the "7900GT is quieter" is out the window.

Another argument between the two is performance gains with new drivers. Some people say the 7900GT will soon crush the X1800XT because current drivers don't fully take advantage of it. Of course it is easy to spot the logic flaw there. There is always room for improvements in performance through driver upgrades, whether it be from ATI or Nvidia.
April 9, 2006 5:48:52 AM

i just threw the x1900xt in there for posterities sake, i was just wondering what ya'lls would say about the refurb...and now i know, dont buy one...but yeah mainly between the x1800XT and the 7900GT....and is it true that ATI cards are better at implementing AA and AF without as much of a performance hit as nVidia Cards?...but you guys definielty think the 512 over the 256?....i dont remember where it was, but i read a comparison, where they compared a 256 and 512 version, of i think it was a 1800, and they discovered that the 512 only really helped when you went to etreme resolutions...and if you were playing Quake 4 on ultra where it needs that much space just for textures :p 
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2006 7:55:35 AM

Quote:
So like more vivid colors?...cause ive never noticed any like grainyness to my current 6600GT as compared to my neighbors x1600 pro....


It's not about graininess but quality of AF and the level of 'floptimizations' in some games, but even then the usual differences are unnoticeable, it's only when they are floptimizations that you would see a drastic difference, otherwise the differences are subtle . Second the penalty for enabling AA wth ATi cards is often a little less than nV thus allowing you better Image Quality through that.

Quote:
and is it true that ATI cards are better at implementing AA and AF without as much of a performance hit as nVidia Cards?...


Yes.

Quote:
and i know why the x1900xt does better on oblivion cause its got 48 pixil shaders, but the x1800xt does not, so why does it still outperform the 7900gt on shader heavy titles?


For Oblivion there's no set understanding of the reason, I wonder about the dynamic branching, since Oblivion makes use of it, and ATi cards are very good at it, but until someone truely enables/disables enough things to find out for sure it's likely a subtle combination of things.

Quote:
And i got links to the four cards im looking at...


IMO the X1800XT 256, or get an X1900 All-in-wonder. The other are nice, but the price isn't as nice as those two IMO.

Quote:
and they discovered that the 512 only really helped when you went to etreme resolutions...and if you were playing Quake 4 on ultra where it needs that much space just for textures


And BF2.

IT depends it's a nice bonus, but I wouldn't spend more than 5-10% on a card for it, depending on how much I think the core could take advanatage of it.
April 9, 2006 8:49:02 AM

Quote:
i just threw the x1900xt in there for posterities sake, i was just wondering what ya'lls would say about the refurb...and now i know, dont buy one...but yeah mainly between the x1800XT and the 7900GT....and is it true that ATI cards are better at implementing AA and AF without as much of a performance hit as nVidia Cards?...but you guys definielty think the 512 over the 256?....i dont remember where it was, but i read a comparison, where they compared a 256 and 512 version, of i think it was a 1800, and they discovered that the 512 only really helped when you went to etreme resolutions...and if you were playing Quake 4 on ultra where it needs that much space just for textures :p 


Well buying a refurb doesnt mean its a bad card. It just means it was returned under warranty and was fixed and overhauled and is being resold. They arn't selling DOA cards and you have more than 2 weeks to test them out and return them. They should perform just like any other 1900XT. Look at the price, the next highest 1900XT is a Diamond RETAIL @ $429. So theres only a 29$ difference. What does that tell you, the price difference is because theres no warranty, its been used, and its been opened. And all that is only worth $29. There plenty of OEM 1900XT's that work perfectly too and have been reviewed by countless people.

But its a chance you take, more than 2 weeks to test something out is good. With that said I think you should go with the 1800XT 512mb. I have a 7900GT clocked at 580mhz/1560mhz mem and I think the 1800XT will be better. As far as benchmarks they are neck and neck especially since a overclocked 7900GT pretty much catches up to a 1800XT. Benchmarks vary. I think you should go with the 512 1800XT, having more video memory may not increase FPS but will help to reduce stuttering, and pauses as a result of having video textures, shaders moving from the video memory to the HD and so forth.

Newer games will also benefit from 512 mb. Remember, Theres no point in having a game that plays at 150FPS when it stutters from textures being loaded into and out of the HD. SO I think you should go with the 512mb. It will help, also remember that to have the best gameplay experience your system has to be well balanced to get better FPS. Whether you have a 7900GT, GTX, 1900, 8800GTX CO KO XXX Edition or whatever you'll still need some ram, a good cpu, and you can optimize your system to get the best performance....Bottom line, If you didnt give a Shi* about what i said, dont worry yourself...Just read this.......Get a 1800XT 512MB. GOOD LUCK! :D 
April 9, 2006 9:31:02 AM

ok, im really appreciating all the ideas you guys are giving me but i just have one more thing to throw out there. That no matter which card i get im gonna be doing a close to max over clock on it.

So in the case of the 7900 GT, with the volt hard mod getting it up to 1.55 vcore theres pretty much a consensus among people on the xtremesytems forums, where the mopd was found, that they are hitting right around 740 Mhz with a good air cooler which ive got.

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=3437&s=3

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=92...

In the case of the x1800XT, i found a website doing some extrmeme overclocking on the x1xxx series cards, and on the x1800xt they did LN, but first they ran it with air with a zalmann fan and ram sinks, similar to mine and they acheived 740 MHz at 1.5 volts vcore.

http://www.nordichardware.com/Articles/?skrivelse=453&p...

So for a final comparison between the two


x1800XT - stock 625 -> OC'd to ~740 = 18.4 % OC & 115 MHz OC

7900GT - stock 450 -> OC'd to ~740 = 74.11 % OC & 290 MHz OC

So with those overclocks on both do you guys still believe that the ATI card is the one to get?....will the higher bump in clock speed on the 7900GT allow it to over take the 1800 in shader heavy titles such as FEAR or Oblivion?....its alright if its just speculation, cause i know nobodies done those OC's to both cards and tested...
April 9, 2006 9:50:36 AM

7900GT is the better OCer. If you like to extreme OC your cards go for the 7900GT. It runs cooler and has more headroom due to smaller nm techno. used.
I rarely OC mine since that brakes the waranty.
April 9, 2006 10:35:04 AM

i have both cards and the IQ is impossible to tell apart. the 7900 is much cooler and overclocks easily however.
April 9, 2006 12:11:28 PM

I don't think the OC will make much of a difference when comparing. It will make the 7900GT a bit more compititive but I would still get an X1800XT or an X1900XT.

In Oblivian you can now do AA and HDR at the same time with the X1000 series from ATI. Cannot be done with Nvidia.
April 10, 2006 12:15:10 AM

Quote:
i have both cards and the IQ is impossible to tell apart. the 7900 is much cooler and overclocks easily however.


It would be excellent if you could give us a review, or a link or other proof of your personal comparison/ownership of these two cards.....thanks :lol: 

There is a comparison on THG between IQ ATI and Nvidia, they have several screenshots. Go look at those and if you cannot tell the difference, your blind.

7900GT running "cooler". Hmm, at what temps? at what fan speed?
Becuase my X1800XT 100% fan speed idles and at load holds lower temps than my previous 7800GT.

I would love to see some info on your 7900GT, this way we have some good hard personal experience here from the 7900 series.

*Five bucks says he doesnt own either card*

@Soup

I can almost believe that link...I'm amazed at the temps, but still slight bit skeptical.
April 10, 2006 12:38:36 AM

7900GT running "cooler". Come on that question wasn't necessary , everyone knows the 7900GT runs cooler than a 1800Xt or 1900XT. No need for a fanboy comment. The truth is the 7900Gt runs way cooler. But the 1800XT beats it. And I think the 1800XT is a better card :D 


Well, the 7900GT idles at 42c and tops out at about 58-60c. I have a PNY version Overclocked and everyone knows it has way better temps than a 1800XT or 1900XT. Plus having the 1800Xt at 100% all the time is like having a mini jet in your PC. You have to admit that. The 7900GT uses a small fan and the noise is moderate. Its GPU controlled and quite quiet but not inaudible. Come on now, 1800XT, 1900Xt go into the 80-90c range when the fan is on stock. They are made to handle high temps like that. The 7900GT OC versions dont even require memory heatsinks so that should tell you enough. Theres alot of site you can check out, over 20 review sites have reviews on these things. With that said ill say the 1800Xt 512mb is better, you can always get an aftermarket cooler, or set the fan to 100% if you can take the noise. Anyways ill be getting a 1900XT, thats the king Kong of cards right now. Cant go wrong with a 1900XT :D 
April 10, 2006 12:47:17 AM

Idle now, I'm @ 37C ....73% fan speed.

My fan on default settings (32%) idles 48C and loads around 66C.
So the 80-90 claim would be if you live in Death Valley or Iraq, take your pick :lol: 

I'll agree with you on noise. With my case door off, yes, the difference between it and other fans is there. Case sealed, fans on....not to much of anything.

My X800pro and XT didnt have Ramsinks (stock) however they were not my coldest running cards by far. So the fact that they do not carry them isnt an inclination towards low heat.

If only the X1900XT would drop down a little more, I'd pounce in a heartbeat.
April 10, 2006 1:35:20 AM

My X1800XT will hit high mid 70's on full load and stock cooling while clocked at 690/1600
April 10, 2006 2:26:57 AM

Heh the 7900gt, great card, if you have the ability, one can overclock the 7900 gt into a speedy 7900gtx settings.. :twisted:
The Ati cards have always had a better IQ[ image quality] than the nvidia cards, but keep in mind, it all comes down to what type of games you will be playing. Some games take advantage at the ATI architecture, while other games take advantage at Nvidias architecture. But the battle of 7900gt and the X1800xt 512mb has still been undecided. If nvidia says that its drivers have not fully utilizied the hardware on the 7900gt, then perhaps the performance will outbeat the x1800xt512mb, but until the the X1800xt 512mb wins this one. Take this in another point of view, every1 know that SLI performes better than X-fire, so pair 2x 7900gt vs, 2x X1800xt 512mb, which will perform better? Another view, if one can overclock the 7900gt to its big brothers settings, the 7900GTX, then run the OC'ed pair 7900gt in SLI vs an overclocked pair of X1800xt 512 in X-fire, I'm willing to bet my life that the 7900gt will dominate, possilby even beating the x1900xt. But we all know that the x1900 series support 48 shader units, so its tough to say.
__________________________________
DFI Lan Party NF4 Ultra-D
Amd +3700
Ati x1900xtx
1gb kingston Hyper X
2x 150 gb Wd Raptor X
______________________________________
Nothing is more powerful than Sayans :twisted:
April 10, 2006 2:48:52 AM

a b U Graphics card
April 10, 2006 3:48:09 AM

Quote:
Take this in another point of view, every1 know that SLI performes better than X-fire, so pair 2x 7900gt vs, 2x X1800xt 512mb, which will perform better? Another view, if one can overclock the 7900gt to its big brothers settings, the 7900GTX, then run the OC'ed pair 7900gt in SLI vs an overclocked pair of X1800xt 512 in X-fire, I'm willing to bet my life that the 7900gt will dominate, possilby even beating the x1900xt.

Ouch, got life insurance and loved ones to leave it to? :tongue: Crossfire X1800XT beats SLI 7900GTX in Oblivion.
http://firingsquad.com/hardware/oblivion_high-end_perfo...
April 10, 2006 6:00:02 AM

i don't need to look at someone else's screen shots when i look at my own. this stuff reeks of fanboi bs. yes at times there are slight Differences depending on what game but to rage on about one being better than the other is truly ridiculous.
April 10, 2006 6:03:53 AM

Well, I just went through the same process, trying to decide between the X1800xt and 7900gt.

I chose the X1800XT 512 (after trying out a 7600gt for a few days). I should get here on Tuesday (should have paid the extra $0.25 for FedEx).

I chose the X1800XT for a few reasons. More often than not, from the benches anyway, the x1800 outperforms the 7900. This was especially true in Oblivion (the game I cared most about), but also COD2 (one I also cared about). Though it doesn't OC like the 7900, most seem to have success getting good overclocks out of the x1800xt.
Then there was the better Ati IQ and the ability to do AA and HDR in certain titles that NVidia cannot (Oblivion). Plus, for the same pice as an average 7900gt, you can get a 512mb card (yea, there are $299 7900gts out there, but I've only twice seen it in stock @ newegg, and the first time it was the day they were released). Whether this will help at 1600x1200, I don't know. But at least in certain games, it might.

This is a tough call though. Hopefully that means you can't go wrong with either.

What probably pushed me over the edge, though, was the availability of the 7900gts. They come in, but it's hit or miss. That kind of pissed me off.
April 10, 2006 8:36:34 AM

Its not about fanboyism (if there is such a word) I couldnt be farther from one. However I was just slightly (and still) skeptical of you owning the hardware you say you do. (This is starting to sound terribly familiar)

If you do posses both cards, run a comparison for us real quick.
If I had a 7900 and X1800 I would post more than 2 sentences :) 
April 10, 2006 3:04:04 PM

Um, OK... I decide the X1800 is better.

What do I win?

Seriously, no-one said that the 7900 GT sucks. It's a fine card, and it is a given that it scales better when overclocking. but at stock clocks (NOT superclocked, BTW) the X1800 is the better choice.
a b U Graphics card
April 10, 2006 4:36:32 PM

Quote:
Seriously, no-one said that the 7900 GT sucks.


Well I'll say it.

nVidia sucks, ATi blows.

As in air into the PC / out of the PC.
April 10, 2006 4:54:37 PM

Listen. Honestly, the difference between the two cards is inconsequential and pretty unnoticeable. Think not only about performance, but about warranty, price, and ease of use. CCC is a pain. Even ATi fanbois will admit this simple fact. I own cards from both companies and I prefer nVidia because of price (now that they can manufacture cards that run high-clocked for low prices and at low heat levels) and because of drivers and ease of use. Sure, the ATi card squeezes an extra 200 marks out of 3dMark06. Doesn't matter to me, I can't notice the extra 3% performance in a game, but I do notice the pain in the but it takes to get CCC to register the right drivers and use them the right way, etc.

Frankly, I'd go with the 7900GT just because I prefer the nVidia drivers. As mentioned before, nVidia cards typically run cooler (in my experience).

At any rate, have a good day everyone!
April 10, 2006 5:15:13 PM

Quote:
CCC is a pain. Even ATi fanbois will admit this simple fact.


CCC takes a second or two longer to open, wow. big deal. I'm sure as hell not going to advocate basing a videocard buying decision on that. Each card displays different strengths in different titles, that's much more tangible.

I'm still not sure what the big deal is with people hating CCC. The first versions were very slow, but it's really not that bad anymore. I use both Nvidias and Ati's drivers and other than the extra second to startup, what's the issue? Am I missing some huge disadvantage the CCC's are sporting? Even Nvidia's advanced driver panel seems to take a little bit of thinking before it opens up.
April 10, 2006 5:17:29 PM

ATi tool sure is nice, can't argue with error detection!
a b U Graphics card
April 10, 2006 5:40:54 PM

Quote:
Doesn't matter to me, I can't notice the extra 3% performance in a game,


Try 10-30% when high levels of AA are enabled. And it' nV that get's the higher Bungholioomarks that don't reflect actual DX performance thanks to their DST implementation which no actual game uses. Like we've always said, check the games you like to play at the settings you prefer because no line of cards wins them all.

Quote:
but I do notice the pain in the but it takes to get CCC to register the right drivers and use them the right way, etc.


I see your CCC and match you with Beta drivers, which ones to use for nV this week? Or maybe free AVIVO vs pay for and still worse Purevideo. Once again both have their good and bad, and that extends to their drivers too.

Quote:
As mentioned before, nVidia cards typically run cooler (in my experience).


But to most people that's not as big an issue as the nVidia cards dumping the waste hot air back into the PC while the XT dumps it outside the case.

Both have their good and bad, but really extrwhop cares if one core is at 45C and the other is at 65C if they are both well below their threshhold numbers.

For overclocking (which is all about bungholios and such) it mattes somewhat, but usually they will scale close enough to similarly that the OC difference doesn't make up for the performance difference in either card.

Whoever is looking to buy should read the latest reviews with the latest drivers from multiple reputable sources with the games and settings they prefer and then decide based on performance bang/buck.

Anything less would be st00pid.
April 11, 2006 6:12:36 AM

Quote:
But to most people that's not as big an issue as the nVidia cards dumping the waste hot air back into the PC while the XT dumps it outside the case.


Not all nvidia cards dump heat inside the case. 7900GTX, for example.
a b U Graphics card
April 11, 2006 6:33:38 AM

Quote:

Not all nvidia cards dump heat inside the case. 7900GTX, for example.


Actually the GTX is an example of an nV card that DOES dump it's hot air into the case, it's 50/50 in and out. The HSF draws air from the center and sends it to both ends, therefore it still dumps hot air into the case, whereas the X1800XT, X1900XT and X1900XTX draws the aire across the lngth of the card and out the back ejecting pretty much all of it.
April 11, 2006 7:26:30 AM

Quote:

Not all nvidia cards dump heat inside the case. 7900GTX, for example.


Actually the GTX is an example of an nV card that DOES dump it's hot air into the case, it's 50/50 in and out. The HSF draws air from the center and sends it to both ends, therefore it still dumps hot air into the case, whereas the X1800XT, X1900XT and X1900XTX draws the aire across the lngth of the card and out the back ejecting pretty much all of it.

I saw a tinsel test at a shop with a 7900GTX and it drew air from the PCI-e power cable end as well as the fan opening and blew the majority of it out the back. To be more accurate, it drew air into part of the PCI-e power cable end of the HS (top if I remember right) and also blew out a lesser amount at that end on the bottom. He did not tinsel-test the rear opening very carefully, so I don't know if it had any areas that took air in. The sales guy also tinsel-tested air flow on an X1900XT and it was pushing some air into the case from a couple of spots as well. To top it all off, the dude also had a camera that was IR sensitive and the ATI looked to be putting much more heat into the case.

These guys were not nvidia fanboys - the guy doing the test had the X1900XT in his gaming rig and the rest of the employees seemed to want one (or the XTX). So I came away feeling that there wasn't a big difference in air flow, but the ATI (heat-wise, not video perf-wise) started out behind the 8-ball by generating quite a bit more heat to begin with. Disclaimer: I know from years of safety-testing airflows that the tinsel-test is NOT foolproof. I got more out of the IR images. The ATI runs HOT, period! I'd guess that it's radiative heat contribution was a significant part of the IR intensity it produced. You could see that the back side of the card was very hot. If I remember right, the back of the ATI was 12 degrees C hotter than the back of the 7900GTX.
a b U Graphics card
April 11, 2006 8:22:39 AM

Quote:

I saw a tinsel test..


Tinsel test. :roll: Smoke, is the only way to do airflow, vortexes will make tinsel move in any direction, but the air flow with smoke shows you exactly where it's going. Design wise it's 50/50 versus 100/0. Show me some good flow control tests that show otherwise fine, but tinsel isn't enough.

As for the IR tests, yes they'll definitely radiate more heat, and that would be a concern to, especially on the dead space on the back of/above the card. But even then it won't be as much heat as constantly pumping waste air back in. Show me the test results, not the recolection of them, and then I'd give the argument some creedance.
April 11, 2006 2:19:52 PM

Quote:
so whichcard is better for about 300$?


Depends on the games you play most, but I'd go with the HIS X1800XT that's on sale for $299.

Check some benchies in a bunch of games at higher settings;
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_7900_gt_gtx_performance/


the HIS X1800XT has 256mb DDR3.I think that 512mb DDR3 will be better for futur games.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductCompare.asp?Compar...

these cards look like same things...but the prices are not same.

what is the difference between these two cards?
a b U Graphics card
April 11, 2006 2:25:50 PM

YEah the 512 is worth it, I didn't notice it wasn't 512 at first, then the HIS for $329 is a good choice.

As for the difference between the two sapphires it's the OEM vs Retail.

Retail comes with the full package, OEM usually comes with the bare essentials. OEM warranty may also sometimes be less.
April 11, 2006 2:34:31 PM

Why do you prefer HIS products?
April 11, 2006 2:50:30 PM

Quote:

I saw a tinsel test..


Tinsel test. :roll: Smoke, is the only way to do airflow, vortexes will make tinsel move in any direction, but the air flow with smoke shows you exactly where it's going. Design wise it's 50/50 versus 100/0. Show me some good flow control tests that show otherwise fine, but tinsel isn't enough.

As for the IR tests, yes they'll definitely radiate more heat, and that would be a concern to, especially on the dead space on the back of/above the card. But even then it won't be as much heat as constantly pumping waste air back in. Show me the test results, not the recolection of them, and then I'd give the argument some creedance.

No, smoke isn't the only way to do airflow. Or maybe you know more than engineers from Boeing, GM, Porsche, Trek, NASA, etc., that all still do variations on tinsel. If tinsel is drawn into a HS, or is blown away from it, that's airflow. And yes, radiated heat is not only real, it is a concern because like other forms of heat flow, it is a true component of the whole. It was easy to see that not only were the surfaces of the X1900XT hotter but that other nearby surfaces such as mobo were being heated by the VGA. I get a kick out of how you've made a quantitative assessment without having seen data - or are you holding out? Show me YOUR test results, or are you just hypothesizing?

You say to show you test results, well first off, I don't own an IR camera nor an X1900XT. But if I wanted to do the test for real, I'd use calorimetry. If you want to see those kinds of data, which are relaible and most importantly, QUANTITATIVE, get me an X1900XT and pay for the analysis - I can do it for you at cost. I'll even build the test chamber for free! Specify the test conditions you want carefully because it's all in the details.
April 11, 2006 3:54:25 PM

Well i DO have both (even different brands)

and i can tell you that 1800 runs hotter and noisier...period .

performance wise it depends what you want to run but both cards are great performers .

furthermore : take an arctic cooling vga silencer when you buy a new card,
$ 25 on top of one of these cards is pocket change and it runs cooler and less noisy .
April 11, 2006 4:42:32 PM

Quote:
Well i DO have both (even different brands)

and i can tell you that 1800 runs hotter and noisier...period .

performance wise it depends what you want to run but both cards are great performers .

furthermore : take an arctic cooling vga silencer when you buy a new card,
$ 25 on top of one of these cards is pocket change and it runs cooler and less noisy .



which cooler should we prefer for x1800XT?
April 11, 2006 5:25:13 PM

if x1800XT is better then the 7900GT, why all 7900GTs are out of stock?
!