Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

X1800XT 256MB or 7900GT 512MB

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 22, 2006 11:47:45 AM

Dont know which one to go for, please advize....

More about : x1800xt 256mb 7900gt 512mb

June 22, 2006 12:30:11 PM

If you'd scroll down the page, you'd see several threads with the exact same question.

You can't go wrong with either card. Both perform about the same. 7900GT overclocks better, and the X1800XT has more features.

What games you play?
June 22, 2006 1:35:52 PM

Hi,

I play Oblivion, bf2, spellforce 2, FEAR....

I have read most of the threads but none address the memory difference.

I would like to get the x1800xt 256mb but am not sure would the 512mb 7900gt be better and more future proof?
Related resources
June 22, 2006 1:38:52 PM

Video memory means nothing. In your case, the X1800XT would be better, since it'll run Oblivion better. Nothing is future proof, and 256mb of video memory is more than enough for now.
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2006 1:52:48 PM

Dang, I just responded to his other thread and then notice this one.


By the way, the X1800XT hammers BF2 also. HQ AF is quite nice in that game. Based on his games, I agree with you...X1800XT.
June 22, 2006 1:59:44 PM

Thanks Im going for the Sapphire x1800xt 256mb. Hope this meets everyone's approval
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2006 2:15:22 PM

I dissaprove! :evil: 

You need REALIZM boy! 640MB of 512bit memory Wonderment! :mrgreen:
June 22, 2006 2:51:42 PM

Quote:
I dissaprove! :evil: 

You need REALIZM boy! 640MB of 512bit memory Wonderment! :mrgreen:

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
Nice!


X1800XT will run all games maxed out.
June 22, 2006 2:59:50 PM

Quote:
256mb of video memory is more than enough for now.


Key word is for now. Personally I like to plan for the future since I can't afford to buy a new card every year.

Not saying the 7900GT is better but with how high it can overclock, I'd rather have similiar performing cards but have the one with more video memory.

That being said the next card I'm buying is a 1900XT.
June 22, 2006 3:07:10 PM

In 6 months, a 512mb 7900GT or X1800XT probably won't run any games at high settings, so you'll need an upgrade anyway. The way the GPU industry is going, you'll need an upgrade in about 12 months. Having 512mb now won't help, and I don't think it'll help with a 7900GT or X1800XT in the future.
June 22, 2006 3:25:33 PM

Quote:
X1800XT will run all games maxed out.
F.E.A.R.? Oblivion? :wink:

X1800XT > 7900GT
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2006 3:45:38 PM

Quote:

Not saying the 7900GT is better but with how high it can overclock, I'd rather have similiar performing cards but have the one with more video memory.


If they were the exact same architecture that'd make sense, but considering ATi's memory optimizations and their slightly more efficient hyperZ and branching, I'd say that the memory difference between these two cards will be minimal. The only place it might make a difference is if there is truely a move to large textures like BF2's 512MB difference.

Because as prozac hints to , by the time it does matter as you argue, these cards won't be able to push hard enough to make use of that extra space really.

It's like the 512MB on an X1600P, it's nice to have for the very limited number of situations where it might come in handy (maybe Vista's vectored desktop?), but it's not like you can crank the AA to 6X @ 1920x1440 because the VPU can't process at that level.

All things being equal it's a nice bonus, but the times when it's a determining factor is very limited, and the longevity of which I would question (sure the X800XL-512 was great in HL2 at high res, but in Oblivion it makes no difference because it just can't get anywhere near good performance).
June 22, 2006 4:38:06 PM

Quote:
sure the X800XL-512 was great in HL2 at high res, but in Oblivion it makes no difference because it just can't get anywhere near good performance


I wouldn't say the X800XL can't get anywhere near good performance in Oblivion. In most situations, it averages 45-60fps with bloom enabled at 1280x1024. The oblivion gate (a fairly intense scene) is one of the few points where it really struggles.
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2006 5:03:37 PM

Quote:

I wouldn't say the X800XL can't get anywhere near good performance in Oblivion. In most situations, it averages 45-60fps with bloom enabled at 1280x1024. The oblivion gate (a fairly intense scene) is one of the few points where it really struggles.


It's a question of 'good' performance because of the memory, while it's ok, and does well against even an GF7600GT. The mid-level X1800GTO outperforms it it by almost double. Whereas the difference between the 256mb and 512mb on the X800XL makes no difference;
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/oblivion_mainstream...

At the time the 512MB model launched there was a noticeable difference in HL2 where it stomped on an X850XT at high resolution+AA, and this was 'supposed' to be indicative of future benfiits. However what we tend to forget is that by the time theses future titles come out, these current cards are going to be struggling to begin with.
June 22, 2006 5:32:56 PM

I'm on the fence about this one.

Usually people are comparing the 512mb X1800 XT to a 256mb 7900 GT, in which case the X1800 XT is the better choice.

But with the tables turned I'm not so sure. The amount of memory generally has a pretty low impact on performance but, aside from the X1800 XT's dominance in oblivion it might shift the tide a bit, the cards are pretty close to start with.

I'd like to see some 256mb X1800 XT vs 512mb 7900 GT benches.
June 22, 2006 5:33:00 PM

I was a little off topic, as I didn't address the 256 vs. 512 issue. I agree that it makes little if no difference in most titles. Buying a card like an X800XL now with 512mb of video memory is clearly no way to "futureproof." I only disputed that the X800XL offers generally "acceptable" (obviously subjective) performance at average resolutions in Oblivion. I don't dispute that newer cards like the X1800GTO would be a far better option, but some older cards like X800XLs can still be had for $130 or less new, which would be a viable option for some budget Oblivion players.
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2006 6:10:51 PM

And my 'good performance' wasn't based on anything other than the relationship to the X800XL/X850XT/ and the cards they now find them selves pitted against.

Hey if you got one it's fine, I like how my MRX700 plays Oblivion, and for me it' 'good', not great of course, but obviously 'good enough' or else I'd buy a new one (like the new Toshiba HD-DVD laptop) with GF7600.
June 22, 2006 6:47:46 PM

My point was more that the 7900GTs OC potential is quite good so with 512MB of RAM and OCing it to insanely high speeds, it would outperform the 1800XT since they can come close to the performance of an X1900XT without changing the voltage.

People get up to like 700MHz on the core and 900MHz on the memory on air. Then when they start changing the voltage some people see 800MHz on the core and 1000MHz on the memory. Requires a little soldering but its nothing insanely difficult.
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2006 8:18:17 PM

Quote:
I'd like to see some 256mb X1800 XT vs 512mb 7900 GT benches.

Yeah me too, and add 512MB X1800XT, 256MB 7900GT, and X1900GT also. Those 5 cards (may as well throw in a X1900XTX and 7900GTX for good measure) in a slew of games would make for a very useful test. SHoot, can't you put in a request for the cards and bench away? You have 100 hours to kill don't you? I'll be among the first to read it; send me a linky. :p 
June 22, 2006 8:40:48 PM

I'm already doing what I can to get a 7600 GT/X1800 GTO/X850 XT comparo happening as soon as possible. :) 
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2006 8:42:10 PM

Sweetness (another useful grouping), send me a link when it's up.
June 22, 2006 10:01:54 PM

well umm id go for the x1800xt 512mb, cuz its like 300 bucks, but a 7900gtx (i assume ur talking bout htat one cuz u said 512mb) costs over 400, well, in that case, go for the x1900xt
!