x1800XT vs. x1900GT vs. 7900GT

[brad91]

I was going to get a 7600GT but then I desided to go for something more powerfull .

So I need to know which one of these cards would be the best for price and preformance.

I am currently playing COD2, F.e.a.r, BF2, Quake4 and Oblivion in the near future.

X1800XT:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102007

X1900GT:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102020

7900GT:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814130015

 

[pauldh]

They are all good cards at good prices, and really very close in performance. I'd say the X1800XT for $239 as it's the cheapest and matches the 7900GT KO' s performance. Too bad the $20 rebate expired on the X1800XT. That's a good price for a 7900GT too though if you prefer NV. For Oblivion I think the X1800XT is the one to go with though.

Anyway, here's a review for you: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/sapphire_radeon_x1900_gt/page3.asp

 

[brad91]

That x1800XT is starting to look good to me.

That test showed a 512mb x1800XT how much of a difference would it be between 512mb and 256mb?

Also it says the x1900GT has more shader processors which would be (in theory) faster in newer games that require more shading. So if that were true would the x1900GT be more future proof?

 

[Primitivus]

Very little difference between 512MB & 256MB unless, maybe, you game @ very high resolutions. And as far as the 1900GT is concerned, "in theory" doesn't make as convincing an argument as benchmarks. Go for the X1800XT

 

[pauldh]

There are no direct reviews yet between the 512MB and 256MB X1800XT. I think the areas where the 512MB stands out above the 256MB would be few and far between, and really depend on the game. I'd expect COD2 would give the 512MB a lead, and potentially future titles too.

This review tests the 256MB Sapphire X1800XT. They basically say no real benefit over the 7900GT although the X1800Xt is technically faster. One thing you can see is high resolution with FSAA/AF, the X1800XT shows it's power pulling ahead of the 7900GT. http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=542

The X1900GT overclocked might be very nice. I just can't see it being much better in the future when it is easily behind by a bit in the current most stressful games. That's just my gut feeling though as I was a bit dissapointed that the X1900GT seems to be a step down.

 

[brad91]

Very little difference between 512MB & 256MB unless, maybe, you game @ very high resolutions. And as far as the 1900GT is concerned, "in theory" doesn't make as convincing an argument as benchmarks. Go for the X1800XT

Thanks it looks like I'll go for the x1800XT then .

What do you consider high resolutions? I normaly game at 1280x1024.

 

[prozac26]

X1900GT doesn't win any benchmarks against the X1800XT. So it's between 7900GT and X1800XT. Any of those two will be fine.

 

[Primitivus]

What do you consider high resolutions? I normaly game at 1280x1024.

High res is above 1600x1200 with current high-end hardware. At 1280x1024 256MB of VRAM will serve you just fine

 

[angry_ducky]

X1900GT doesn't win any benchmarks against the X1800XT. So it's between 7900GT and X1800XT. Any of those two will be fine.

Can you post some benchies for the X1900GT?

 

[jaguarskx]

Very little difference between 512MB & 256MB unless, maybe, you game @ very high resolutions. And as far as the 1900GT is concerned, "in theory" doesn't make as convincing an argument as benchmarks. Go for the X1800XT

Thanks it looks like I'll go for the x1800XT then .

What do you consider high resolutions? I normaly game at 1280x1024.

High resolution is 1600 x 1200. The one you listed is standard for all 19" LCDs. The X1800XT is fine for that resolution.

The X1900XT is what I would recommend for 1600 x 1200 resolution.

 

[pauldh]

There are 5 or 6 reviews I have seen of the X1900GT. I linked the FS one way up top.

 

[pauldh]

I don't really buy into the high res 512MB thing. I still think it's the game that matters most.

For example, in Oblivion, GF7900's with 512MB showed only an improvement in the mountains and not indoors or in the foliage. But, that lead the 512MB had was only at lower resolutions and it dissappeared once getting to 1600x1200. http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/oblivion_mainstream_performance/page2.asp

I am going to agree with Jaguar that for high resolution, you want a more powerful GPU(step up to X1900XT). To me that would be more important than extra amount of memory. If I had an LCD with native 1600x1200 or 1920x1600, then I'd want the X1900XT.

Sure would be nice for someone to thoroughly compare the two X1800XT versions to once and for all answer this question.

 

[brad91]

Thank you that answered my question perfectly.

I will be getting the x1800XT 256mb .

 

[angry_ducky]

There are 5 or 6 reviews I have seen of the X1900GT. I linked the FS one way up top.

I just read that review, and it seems like the X1800XT performs better than the X1900GT and almost the same as the X1900XT despite costing less than those other cards.

 

[pauldh]

The X1800XT only matches the X1900XT at lower resolution. But it seems to beat the X1900GT at any resolution.

 

[mafiafish]

512mb oy makes a difference if you are using compressed textures which isnt really important yet with dx10 i suppose it will be more important. the 7900gt can overclock very well due to its process size but cannot match the x1800xt if you get a x1800xt (as i plan to do as a replacemnt for a x850xtpe) i would definatley recomend removing the reference cooler and adding a new one either a artic colling, water block or one of those sytrin ku formula vf1 plus:

http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/04/14/is_the_kuformula_vf1_plus_the_formula_for_graphics_cooling_uk/page12.html
after that youl have a great card that will play all modern games at maximum at 1280x1024 and good quality at 1600x1200 (maybe with a few exceptions)

 

[cleeve]

512mb oy makes a difference if you are using compressed textures which isnt really important yet with dx10

The big advantage of 512mb is that it will allow you to use higher-res texture sets in games that support that amount of texture-RAM.

If you try using the ultra-high texture setting in Doom3 with a 256mb card, it'll swap textures to the hard disk and stutter like crazy.

More RAM is also helpful with high levels of AA & AF.