X1800XT > X1900GT; Firingsquad comparison

[pauldh]

At least for now the X1800XT is clearly the better buy, winning in performance and price.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/sapphire_radeon_x1900_gt/

 

[Primitivus]

Yeah but do you think it could be flashed to enable the extra pipelines?

 

[cleeve]

Bizarre. Not nearly as good as I would have guessed.

Still, I'd be interested in seeing it's oc performance voltmodded with Ati tool... I'll bet at 700+ Mhz it kicks it up a few notches...

 

[Heyyou27]

The X1900GT didn't beat the X1800XT in ANY game. 8O

 

[xSunnYx]

I would take the 1900GT for OCing possibilities,

Since i saw the 1900GT some where else running on 1900XTX clocks..

 

[Anoobis]

I think we need to wait until a few more tests have been done. Especially if those pipes can be enabled as well as the other OC features. It looks like this card has a lot of potential.

Then again, the card does do what it is meant to do, and that's compete with and/or beat the 7900GT. Perhaps that's all ATI wanted to accomplish, but that doesn't sound like ATI.

Could it also be said that this card might have more longevity in it than the X1800XT due to having more than twice the available pixel shaders?

 

[Jebazor]

Why not just go for the x1800xt, it is still a very good card.

 

[pauldh]

I am still disappointed and expected it to trade blows with the X1800XT. I can't see it gaining much performance from drivers seeing how X1900XT's have been out for a while. OCing and Modding might be the cards biggest/only appeal. Problem is, will this start to replace X1800XT stock? I'd hate to see X1800XT dissapaer and only leave this in it's place.

 

[Action_Man]

Damn, that's sucky. I was thinking about getting one, looks like I'll have to scrap that idea.

 

[Heyyou27]

A bit disappointing; I figured it would perform better in F.E.A.R. and Oblivion.
So much for all of those pixel shaders, eh? :lol:

 

[Action_Man]

They'll be very useful later on. Handy if you hold onto your cards for a while.

 

[ltcommander_data]

Even with the push to use more pixel shaders, games will still be using quite a bit of textures. With 16 pipelines the R520 and R580 were already constrained by their texture performance and going down to 12 pipelines doesn't help matters. Between the lower clock speeds and fewer textures units there was really no way the X1900GT could be comparable to the X1800XT. They probably should have been more aggressive with they memory speeds though. Something like the 1400Mhz GDDR3 used in the X1600XT would have probably helped. Argh, why do they use such wierd numbers like 1390Mhz anyways?

At least they fixed the noise issue. I wished everyone would use the modified cooler that Connect3D uses. It's larger, quiter, and much more efficient.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/05/09/connect3d_sapphire_radeon_x1900gt/1.html

 

[Jebazor]

Why is it that for ATI GT=bad and XT=good, and for Nvidia GT=good and XT=bad? Why the heck do they even need to add them extra letters anyways? People who know nothing about graphics cards are in danger of getting seriously ripped off. .

 

[dvdpiddy]

Thanks for the post Pauldh. I have a question why did they lock 4 of the pipes on the x1900gt why could'nt they just leave it so it would be 36 shaders to 16 pipes why cant they do that does it have to be that 3 pixels per pipe wouldnt it be better if it was 2.25 pixels per pipe or they cant do that cause it is not possible to split a pixel after it has been processed?

 

[coylter]

I think we need to wait until a few more tests have been done. Especially if those pipes can be enabled as well as the other OC features. It looks like this card has a lot of potential.

Then again, the card does do what it is meant to do, and that's compete with and/or beat the 7900GT. Perhaps that's all ATI wanted to accomplish, but that doesn't sound like ATI.

Could it also be said that this card might have more longevity in it than the X1800XT due to having more than twice the available pixel shaders?

Its clearly not beating the 7900gt, and the 7900 seem to be a better overclocker.

Hell im running my two 7900gt at gtx speed with the volt mod on the stock coolers...

 

[Jebazor]

I don't like the gtx's stock coolers, what manufacturer did you go with?

 

[dvdpiddy]

Dont you mean gt stock cooler?

 

[only_me]

i was impressed until i noticed it was the x1800xt 512! not the x1800xt 256, i don't think its a fair comparison, it costs a lot more, and has more memory,
i would like to see it compared with the normal x1800xt

 

[dvdpiddy]

I did'nt notice that i say that the x1800xt would still win.

 

[coylter]

I don't like the gtx's stock coolers, what manufacturer did you go with?

evga

 

[raven_87]

Why is it that for ATI GT=bad and XT=good, and for Nvidia GT=good and XT=bad? Why the heck do they even need to add them extra letters anyways? People who know nothing about graphics cards are in danger of getting seriously ripped off. .

This is actually a brilliant marketing ploy. It started with the FX series (5900XT). Basically at the time the 9800XT was the fastest thing in silicon,
so in order to hold onto what was left of their market share, NV realized many people simply recognized that the XT in the 9xxx line meant superiority, so in order to boost their sales, and de-value ATI's line...they implemented the XT in some of their GPUs.

Hense sometimes leading people to believe they were top ranged cards at a midranged price.

Same goes for ATI. They saw the success of the 6600 and 6800GT, and they decided to implement the GT and GTO for their midranged cards....
Just a big play on words to be honest.

 

[dvdpiddy]

Why is it that for ATI GT=bad and XT=good, and for Nvidia GT=good and XT=bad? Why the heck do they even need to add them extra letters anyways? People who know nothing about graphics cards are in danger of getting seriously ripped off. .

This is actually a brilliant marketing ploy. It started with the FX series (5900XT). Basically at the time the 9800XT was the fastest thing in silicon,
so in order to hold onto what was left of their market share, NV realized many people simply recognized that the XT in the 9xxx line meant superiority, so in order to boost their sales, and de-value ATI's line...they implemented the XT in some of their GPUs.

Hense sometimes leading people to believe they were top ranged cards at a midranged price.

Same goes for ATI. They saw the success of the 6600 and 6800GT, and they decided to implement the GT and GTO for their midranged cards....
Just a big play on words to be honest. Brilliant you should be working in marketing

 

[Jebazor]

That is genius :twisted: , and evga is the only way to go...

 

[dvdpiddy]

No get whats cheaper.

 

[Anoobis]

I think we need to wait until a few more tests have been done. Especially if those pipes can be enabled as well as the other OC features. It looks like this card has a lot of potential.

Then again, the card does do what it is meant to do, and that's compete with and/or beat the 7900GT. Perhaps that's all ATI wanted to accomplish, but that doesn't sound like ATI.

Could it also be said that this card might have more longevity in it than the X1800XT due to having more than twice the available pixel shaders?

Its clearly not beating the 7900gt, and the 7900 seem to be a better overclocker.

Hell im running my two 7900gt at gtx speed with the volt mod on the stock coolers...

Nor did I say or mean it "clearly" beats it. I said it competes with it and/or beats it. By that I meant it can trade blows with it depending on the game. The OC potential of the card remains to be seen depending on whether or not the disabled pipes can be unlocked or as to the possibility of voltmodding it like Cleeve hinted at. Like I said, more testing (either in the "wild" or in the lab) needs to be done before we write this card off.