Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Radeon 9800 vs. Radeon X1600

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 5, 2006 2:38:02 AM

Im currently using GeForce Ti4200, which runs games on low-medium settings pretty well, without any of the fancy features (HDR, AA). The latest games started to ask for Shader 2.0 support as a minimum.

I have a choice between ATI Radeon 9800 PRO 256MB (AGP) and Sapphire Radeon X1600 PRO 512MB (AGP).

Im not interested in playing games on highest settings - low-medium is enough for me (without HDR ect.), all I care for is that it launches.

Which one of those two cards would you recommend?

Any support would be greatly appreciated.


P.S.: Im new to this community, sorry if my english isn't well, it isn't my first language. Thank you!
June 5, 2006 3:20:10 AM

The X1600Pro is faster than the 9800Pro, and it has Shader model 3, rather than 2. I'd get the X1600Pro.
June 5, 2006 5:11:05 AM

you can get a decent geforce 6 series for AGP. a good 6600 or an ok 6800
Related resources
June 5, 2006 5:49:23 AM

Quote:
The x1600Pro 512Mb and x1600xt 256Mb are the same price. I don't recommend a x1600Pro. These are only at 500mhz core/390mhz memory. It's 512Mb available memory cannot makeup for the low clocks so it generate bottleneck. An x1600xt got 590mhz core/690mhz memory. mine x1600xt is overclocked to 650mhz core/810mhz memory @64°C and in 3dmark05 the scenes are now flawless.

But if you are to get the best performance for the buck get a 7600gt. it is nearly as powerful as an x1800. THG tested a new model with passive cooling surpassing other cards in performance AND temps AND noise.

peace


you do know that they don't make an AGP version of the X1600XT
June 5, 2006 6:30:06 AM

As NovaThunder noted, you would probably get the best performance/price ratio from the 7600 series
:D 
June 5, 2006 6:41:48 AM

is there a certain price you have in mind?
June 5, 2006 7:52:52 AM

Quote:
Im currently using GeForce Ti4200, which runs games on low-medium settings pretty well, without any of the fancy features (HDR, AA). The latest games started to ask for Shader 2.0 support as a minimum.

I have a choice between ATI Radeon 9800 PRO 256MB (AGP) and Sapphire Radeon X1600 PRO 512MB (AGP).

Im not interested in playing games on highest settings - low-medium is enough for me (without HDR ect.), all I care for is that it launches.

Which one of those two cards would you recommend?

Any support would be greatly appreciated.


P.S.: Im new to this community, sorry if my english isn't well, it isn't my first language. Thank you!




What's the rest of your hardware?

Please post your full specs including the PSU.

Thanks!
June 5, 2006 10:17:45 AM

Quote:
As NovaThunder noted, you would probably get the best performance/price ratio from the 7600 series
:D 
You do know that there are no 7600 cards available for AGP?
June 5, 2006 11:05:13 AM

Quote:
As NovaThunder noted, you would probably get the best performance/price ratio from the 7600 series
:D 
You do know that there are no 7600 cards available for AGP?
*cough*n00bs*cough*






:lol: 
June 5, 2006 11:09:11 AM

Quote:
As NovaThunder noted, you would probably get the best performance/price ratio from the 7600 series
:D 
You do know that there are no 7600 cards available for AGP?
*cough*n00bs*cough*






:lol: 



:lol:  :lol:  let's stop picking on n00bs we all make mistakes and we were all n00bs once upon a time ;-)

Maybe not all of us :lol:  :lol: 
June 5, 2006 11:15:56 AM

Quote:
As NovaThunder noted, you would probably get the best performance/price ratio from the 7600 series
:D 
You do know that there are no 7600 cards available for AGP?

http://www.theinquirer.org/?article=30223

Don't worry linux, u still cool!
June 5, 2006 11:33:20 AM

Quote:
As NovaThunder noted, you would probably get the best performance/price ratio from the 7600 series
:D 
You do know that there are no 7600 cards available for AGP?

http://www.theinquirer.org/?article=30223

Don't worry linux, u still cool!




Yes, I believe it's due out in July. :-D
June 5, 2006 5:45:36 PM

Thanks to everyone for replying and commenting.

As for Linux_0's request:

CPU: AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (400MHz FSB/512KB Cache)
RAM: 2.0 GB (2x1024MB) of Corsair Memory PC-3200 (400MHz)
Motherboard: Chaintech Summit 7NJL6 (nForce2)
PSU: Thermaltake PurePower 420W (v12)
Hard Drive: Maxtor 80GB (2MB Cache)

Note: Im looking for the comparison for the two cards I mentioned in my main post. I have no interest in other cards for now.
Thanks everyone once again.
June 5, 2006 7:39:52 PM

X1600 is better, because it's newer. Plus, it has more pipelines.
June 5, 2006 8:43:30 PM

i believe a 6600GT would be a good choice
June 6, 2006 12:34:33 AM

Quote:
X1600 is better, because it's newer. Plus, it has more pipelines.


HAha, can I call you n00b?!?

Technically R9800 has more 'pipes'. :tongue:

But definitely the X1600 has more pixel shader power and vertex power.

But the R9800 is feeling a little limited nowadays. Still great as a card to hold on to, but I wouldn't want to buy one new, same goes for the GF6600 series.

IMO only options are X1600P or as alternated GF6800GS/X800GTO.
June 6, 2006 7:39:16 AM

The 9800 Pro will absolutely STOMP the X1600 Pro in Black & White 2. Really, especially at the intro. The X1600 renders things by default that the 9800 cannot render. But it doesn't have the power to render all that extra detail, hence it's much slower.

The only game I know that's affected is Black & White 2.
June 6, 2006 9:50:04 AM

Quote:
The 9800 Pro will absolutely STOMP the X1600 Pro in Black & White 2. Really, especially at the intro. The X1600 renders things by default that the 9800 cannot render. But it doesn't have the power to render all that extra detail, hence it's much slower.

The only game I know that's affected is Black & White 2.




Crashman to the rescue :-D :trophy:
June 6, 2006 2:01:57 PM

Quote:
The 9800 Pro will absolutely STOMP the X1600 Pro in Black & White 2. Really, especially at the intro. The X1600 renders things by default that the 9800 cannot render. But it doesn't have the power to render all that extra detail, hence it's much slower.

The only game I know that's affected is Black & White 2.




Crashman to the rescue :-D :trophy:

lol linux

man, no good smilies here, my forum has good smilies
June 6, 2006 3:02:18 PM

the x1600 is definately a much better choice though you may want to overclock it more. I see alot of other people are saying go with the 9800 or a 6600gt but those cards are losing steam quickly. They already crap out when you try to play games like call of duty 2 or oblivion because they are so old.
June 6, 2006 4:00:34 PM

I recently did an upgrade from a 9800 Pro to a 1600 Pro, trying to save money and buy some time before I had the funds for my new rig. In the games I played (Dungeon Siege 2, Quake 4, Oblivion), I saw an immediate jump of about 35-45% in FPS.

When I built the new rig, I used an AsRock Dual Sata-2 S939 thinking I'd bring the 1600Pro AGP card over to it and buy me some more time. I promptly spent the $250 (with a $30 rebate) on a X1800XT and finally made the move to PCIe...and haven't looked back.

My advice - don't bother with the 9800 Pro. GREAT card in it's day, but if you're stuck on AGP, the 1600 Pro (or the MUCH more expensive 7800GS) are the only two options to even consider if you want HDR support. If not, you also have the X800 and X850 series, along with the slower 6600GT. I really wanted the 7800GS, but couldn't justify spending $300+ when I could buy a new MB and an X1800XT for the same price and have 5x the performance.
June 6, 2006 4:46:48 PM

Quote:
The 9800 Pro will absolutely STOMP the X1600 Pro in Black & White 2. Really, especially at the intro. The X1600 renders things by default that the 9800 cannot render. But it doesn't have the power to render all that extra detail, hence it's much slower.

The only game I know that's affected is Black & White 2.




Crashman to the rescue :-D :trophy:

lol linux

man, no good smilies here, my forum has good smilies





good one!
June 6, 2006 5:45:01 PM

I have a 9800 Pro and it performs well. Ironically, I was considering upgrading to the X1600 pro, mainly for Pixel Shader 3. I haven't been ablee to justify the cost for mediocre gain. If you're looking for something new, go with the X1600. It's a step up for sure.

I can play battlefield 2 and F.E.A.R. with no problems (800x600); VERY playable at medium settings (I'm not shooting at ink bloches ;) ). I've been pleasantly surprised with the performance of my system on newer games: I don't ever have to cannibalize my settings (save for Civ 4). I haven't tried B&W2, but I have it if I need to install it.

I have my 3dmark specs at home, and I'd be happy to post benches if we can find another person with an X1600 also willing to do the same.

Note that I have a P4 2.4 stock and ECC RAM, so my numbers will probably sag lower than yours will.
June 6, 2006 5:59:16 PM

too bad they don't make the 6800GT AGP anymore. it was a good card. Right now in 1 of my computers i have an x1600Pro and it handles things ok. Just for something to run, a 9800 would be fine, but for them to run at medium and be able to adapt to games that will come out later, then the X1600 would be your best shot. Or, if you can wait, since a 9800 AGP would cost around $70, just get the 9800, and then save up and upgrade your whole computer
June 6, 2006 6:35:23 PM

Quote:

The x1600Pro got 12/12/5 pipes on 500mhz core/390mhz memory GDDR3 on a 128bit wide bus. It uses shader model 3.0 so setting it to 2.0 put it at same performance level as the 9800Pro


First of all, the X1600Pro has 4 pixel pipelines. Second, there's no easy way I know of to set SM2.0 in B&W2 for the X1600 Pro. Like I said, B&W2 stands out as unusual.

The X1600 Pro is like a 9600 Pro with a bunch of new features added. Some improve performance, others add visual enhancements.
June 6, 2006 6:47:20 PM

Quote:
i believe a 6600GT would be a good choice


I believe a 6600GT would be a poor choice. It has roughly the same power as a 9800Pro, and less than an X1600. There's no denying that a 7600 trounces an X1600, but there's also no denying that 6600GTs are bad at this point, unless you need an ultra-budget card.
June 6, 2006 7:20:07 PM

Quote:
i believe a 6600GT would be a good choice


I believe a 6600GT would be a poor choice. It has roughly the same power as a 9800Pro, and less than an X1600. There's no denying that a 7600 trounces an X1600, but there's also no denying that 6600GTs are bad at this point, unless you need an ultra-budget card.

Actually my friend had a 9600 Pro (NOT 9800). He swapped in a 6800 GS OC AGP and his framerates dropped hardcore. His fill rate plumetted in 3dmark.

I would imagine the 6600 GT is no better.
June 6, 2006 7:29:47 PM

sounds like its time for an upgrade Whizzard
June 6, 2006 7:41:13 PM

I'm saving my pennies for conroe...


and judging by Intel's last Q sales report, I'm not alone. :) 
June 6, 2006 9:18:09 PM

It's twelve pixel shaders across 4 pipelines (ROPs), 3 pixel shaders per pipeline. It's also 5 vertex shaders and 8 z-samples per clock.
June 6, 2006 9:38:55 PM

Quote:
As NovaThunder noted, you would probably get the best performance/price ratio from the 7600 series
:D 
You do know that there are no 7600 cards available for AGP?

http://www.theinquirer.org/?article=30223

Don't worry linux, u still cool!

But they're not out yet.
June 6, 2006 10:33:04 PM

Quote:
As NovaThunder noted, you would probably get the best performance/price ratio from the 7600 series
:D 
You do know that there are no 7600 cards available for AGP?

http://www.theinquirer.org/?article=30223

Don't worry linux, u still cool!

But they're not out yet.

Its not the fact that they aren't out, its that lots of people are speculating that they will come out in about a month, which isn't that long from now
June 6, 2006 11:28:15 PM

I recently aquired an HIS x1600PRO, my rig is an ASROCK K8VM800, Sempron 3000+, 2x512Mb Corsair VS 2-3-3-8@1T, WD 80GB SATA 7200rpm and it got 6756 3dmarks 03 with stock settings, pushing it a little bit (CPU 221*9, mem DDR442 3-3-3-10@1T, GPU 540 VRAM 840) it got 7280 3dmarks 03, I also ran 05 stock settings and it got 3689 hope it helps :p 
June 6, 2006 11:29:35 PM

I would recomend the X1600... I dont know alot about the X1600 other then I was looking at them when I bought my X1300. I used the X1300 to replace my Radion 9800 Pro. They are mostly equal in power (I have to give some of my increased performance to the 805D and PCIe and dual channel ram) but I can tell you I was surprised at the difference. Not a huge difference but enough to be noticible. I wouldnt recomend buying a X1300 but you can do some light gameing on it :) 

PS I didnt want to spend much on my system untill Conroe comes out thats why the cheap parts :p 
June 6, 2006 11:45:40 PM

Quote:

Its not the fact that they aren't out, its that lots of people are speculating that they will come out in about a month, which isn't that long from now


Well they also speculated that the G80 would be out this month too, and.... :roll:

Speculation is all well and good, but you don't buy on speculation, especially one that a while back speculated maybe July. So based on speculation after the G80 or before. :wink:
June 6, 2006 11:49:11 PM

But instead of releasing the G80 this month, they released the 7950 GX2's :p 
June 7, 2006 1:25:03 AM

Quote:
But instead of releasing the G80 this month, they released the 7950 GX2's :p 


And so instead of the GF7600GS AGP they could release the GF7300AGP for all the rumours have panned out. :tongue:
June 7, 2006 2:38:56 AM

Funny thing is I HATE that idea of implementation (2+1).

I'd prefer the idea they were mulling about using the unusead portion of the VPU to do physics simultaneously, as that give hope to 'normal' non-sli/fire laptop users. Even the discrete+integrated solution offer more attractive option IMO.

We'll see when it truely launches what the options and realities are.

I still prefer it to a dedicated PPU, but it's not as attractive if you still need a dedicated card.
June 7, 2006 2:43:52 AM

you can do 1+1, you don't need to have 2+1. Also, wit the newer Xpress 3200 chipset, some configs don't require a master card
June 7, 2006 2:50:22 AM

Quote:
you can do 1+1, you don't need to have 2+1. Also, wit the newer Xpress 3200 chipset, some configs don't require a master card


I know you can do 1+1, but I HATE the idea of 2+1, to me it's even more ridiculous than SLi/Xfire, which I'm not a fan of. And while I know that the new cards (like the GTO) and the future R600 don't need the dongle (and hence 'master' card) I still hte this idea, of using a dedicated VPU for physics as it take away th one thing Havok was pushing for HavokFX in that there is an ability to use unused VPU power which would imply this would be available to the mid-level gamer. Even those who would have an X1600 lying around to add to their X1900 are not the 'mid-level' gamer IMO.

Also like I said, 1+1 offers little hope for Laptop users like myself.
June 7, 2006 2:54:53 AM

Essentially, it would be the same as putting a Physx card in your computer, but it wouldn't cost as much
June 7, 2006 3:07:04 AM

Quote:
Essentially, it would be the same as putting a Physx card in your computer, but it wouldn't cost as much


And also would give you the OPTION of using that vpu power for graphics in titles that aren't HavokFX optimized or even physics intensive, whereas the PPU would pretty much be just wasting a few watts when not required with no other options to use that processing power for.
June 7, 2006 5:23:20 AM

Quote:
I recently aquired an HIS x1600PRO, my rig is an ASROCK K8VM800, Sempron 3000+, 2x512Mb Corsair VS 2-3-3-8@1T, WD 80GB SATA 7200rpm and it got 6756 3dmarks 03 with stock settings, pushing it a little bit (CPU 221*9, mem DDR442 3-3-3-10@1T, GPU 540 VRAM 840) it got 7280 3dmarks 03, I also ran 05 stock settings and it got 3689 hope it helps :p 


I got:

5731 3dmark 03
2735 3dmark 05

default demo settings.

My rig seems close to the above rig. See below specs.

Looks like a roughly 15% performance gain with the X1600 with Shader 2, and 25% with shader 3.

Hope this helps.
June 7, 2006 8:17:09 PM

bench it just to see, here, for more detailed results go here:

http://sky.prohosting.com/dabook/dhindex.htm

A small compilation of tests I made, hopefully, I'll update in a few weeks with the last everest+sciencemark batch, also, I'll try to make more 3dmark runs and download 06, but I don't know when will I make them/post them cuz of stupid bastardish college

And the %, don't care about it, the only thing that matters is getting 30+ FPS with nice quality and if possible a little bit of filtering
Value ROX!!!

Good luck

EDIT: I forgot to tell you that we need to know how much of the improvement is due to the vidcard :p 
!