Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7900 GT or X1900 XT (both with 512 MB)?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 11, 2006 2:31:02 PM

Title basically says it:
Pros for the 7900 GT - less noisy cooler, cheaper
Pro for the X1900XT -- slightly better performance in benchmarks

Prices are around 285 Euro for a 7900GT and around 320 Euro for a X1900XT.


Any comments on either choice? I have had both nVidia and ATI cards in the past and have never had any trouble with either and I am not interested in OC.

More about : 7900 x1900 512

July 11, 2006 2:32:32 PM

The X1900XT is the better card, imo one of the best currently...
July 11, 2006 2:47:37 PM

X1900XT is better than a 7900GT. 7900GTX is about the same as X1900XT.
Related resources
July 11, 2006 3:09:22 PM

X1900XT.
July 11, 2006 3:29:31 PM

I prefer the X1900XT (works awesome on BF2 for me). The Nvidia cards I used in the past (up to a 6800) just dont quite have as nice a picture.
July 11, 2006 3:59:45 PM

X1900XT. Better in more ways than one imo, apart from the noise issue which can be fixed
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 5:13:09 PM

Quote:
Title basically says it:
Pros for the 7900 GT - less noisy cooler, cheaper


Less noisey according to whom?

Xbit doesn't agree with that Assesment;
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/powercol...

GT is noisier. Of course the GTX is quieter than the GT, because the GT has the smaller hyper-spinning HSF.

GTX may be quieter than the XTX/XT, but the GT is noiser than them all.

Other than that both are quality cards, with there being a slight performance advantage with the X1900XT, but it also has a slight higher price.

Pretty much can't go wrong with either.
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 5:19:10 PM

Quote:
X1900XT. Better in more ways than one imo, apart from the noise issue which can be fixed


Or isn't as bad as the GT anyways :twisted: ;
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/powercol...

Really I think if that's the biggest concern considering the 1-2db difference then you need to consider the non-standard HSFs like that on HIS.

BTW, in their next review the ASUS spins louder than the stock ATi for the XTX, which would kind of annoy me if it's louder than reference.
July 11, 2006 5:21:34 PM

Quote:
GT is noisier. Of course the GTX is quieter than the GT, because the GT has the smaller hyper-spinning HSF.

Yup. The GT's fan is like a 4-cylinder crap car, while a GTX HSF is a V8 SUV, in this case, the 4-cylinder being lauder.

:lol: 
July 11, 2006 5:22:07 PM

I can get an 1900XT with a rather silent fan for about 340 Euro.
What about differences in power consumption and psu necessary? I do have an Enermaxx 350W (max. 32A on 12V) - will this do the job in combination with either an AM2 5000+ (after the price cut on 23rd July) or a Conroe E6600/67000 (depending on the final European prices)?
July 11, 2006 5:49:41 PM

no it wont, you'll need a larger power supply
July 11, 2006 6:10:00 PM

Quote:
I can get an 1900XT with a rather silent fan for about 340 Euro.
What about differences in power consumption and psu necessary? I do have an Enermaxx 350W (max. 32A on 12V) - will this do the job in combination with either an AM2 5000+ (after the price cut on 23rd July) or a Conroe E6600/67000 (depending on the final European prices)?


Quote:
no it wont, you'll need a larger power supply


I have to slightly dis-agree... imo

Here are my system specs...
Lian Li PC-60plus Black Aluminum Case (w/TR-3B Black Thermometer/Fan Controller 3.5” bay and a L.I.S.2 (5.5” bay USB LCD Fan Controller))
Opteron 175 (OC’d 2x 2.64 GHz, 2MB cache, Socket 939, .09 micron, E6 stepping, OSA175DAA6CD)
ThermalTake BigWater 745 liquid cooling system complete kit
Asus A8R32-MVP Motherboard (ATI Radeon Xpress 3200 CrossFire, socket 939, SATA2)
HiS X1800XT Graphics Card (625 MHz/700 MHz OC core/1500 Mhz/1600 MHz OC mem, Dual DL-DVI VIVO 512 MB PCIe)
ATI TV Theater 550 PRO Tuner (PCI TV and FM Tuner)
4x 512MB Corsair Micro Xpert DDR RAM (2.5-3-3-8-2T (spd 2-2-2-5-1T) TwinXP 1024-3200XL)
2x 74gig Western Digital Raptor Hard Drives RAID-0 (WD740GD RAID0 150gig Boot Drive)
2x 250gig Western Digital Caviar SE16 Hard Drives (WD2500KS storage and data)
Plextor 716AL Black 16x DVD/CD Burner (IDE slot loading type)
Antec TP-II 550 Power Supply (550 Watt ATX12V v2.0 PSU)
Dell 2405FPW 24-inch LCD Monitor (UltraSharp Wide Aspect Flat Panel Display)
Logitech G-15 Gaming Keyboard
Logitech Cordless Optical TrackMan
Case Fans (PanaFlo 120mm intake, Adda 120mm exhaust blower, PanaFlo 120mm internal circulatory Fan, PanaFlo 92mm exhaust and PanaFlo 80mm Fan)

Measurements and Analysis of Power Draw consumed from this Opteron PC using Kill-a-Watt meter.
Based on a brief quick test, and several follow-ups, I preclude that my AMD Opteron rig when over-clocked at 2420MHz from 2200MHz consumes:
≤ 200 Watts at Idle
≤ 250 Watts during Boot Up
and
≤ 350 Watts at maximum load when benchmarking using 3DMark06 (at 75% efficiency, my PC is requiring ≈ 265 watts of true power from my power supply)
Note: This is only the PC measured at outlet from the Power Supply; my LCD Monitor was not measured per these results.

Before I upgraded to my current 550 watt PSU, I used an Antec TruePower 430 watt PSU, and it performed fine...

Facts are facts... I am using high end components with multi-drives, high end graphics, TV-Tuner, 4x512MB RAM, etc... etc... etc...
and my PC draws a maximum of 350watts from the wall, mind you that means that I could scrape by on just a quality 300 watt PSU!
But more power is better, since it allows more reserve power, and most importantly, will generate less heat...
July 11, 2006 6:47:48 PM

not trying to be a smart butt, but how can you guys sit and say the x1900xt is better than the 7900 gt 512 when that card is new and you have no benchmarks to prove it? all you're going on is you've seen the x1900xt perform.. lets see some proof guys...
July 11, 2006 7:07:24 PM

The X1900 series is superior to nVidia in graphic quality within gaming...
Performance is a mixed bag, with some going to one, others to the other...
Quality tho is much more clear...
July 11, 2006 7:15:09 PM

have you seen benchmarks or game photos of the new 7900gt 512?
like i said, that card is a week old. show proof not opinion.
yeah the x1900xt might be better, i know on newegg it's cheaper.
i've not found one artical to prove that the 7900gt 512 isn't worth the extra 40 bucks though..
July 11, 2006 7:15:26 PM

I was merely trying to say that if he is planning on buying 1500+ dollars (5000+, 1900XT, nice mobo, ram, etc.) why not spend the <100 dollars on a quality PSU to ensure that you dont fry what you just invested in.
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 7:34:18 PM

Quote:
have you seen benchmarks or game photos of the new 7900gt 512?
like i said, that card is a week old. show proof not opinion.


Dang! edit-misread.

With the GT512 < GTX512, and the XT outperforming the GTX512 more often than not, especially in respect to fluid min fps play, I'd say their statements are in line.

So if you want to provide some proof that the 512MB makes enough of a difference to change that reality, so much so that it excels beyond it's faster equally 512MB equipped brother, then it'd be worth waiting for additional tests. Until that time, I'd say the above statements would fit within the expected results, and the IQ differences will not have been improved with the 512MB version.

Quote:
yeah the x1900xt might be better, i know on newegg it's cheaper.
i've not found one artical to prove that the 7900gt 512 isn't worth the extra 40 bucks though..


Worth it over the XT, lots of article could prove that based on the GTX's performance, not worth it over the plain 256GT, now that would require more concrete evidence.

However for the general point of the OP, the above statements fit very well.
July 11, 2006 7:34:23 PM

Quote:
have you seen benchmarks or game photos of the new 7900gt 512?
like i said, that card is a week old. show proof not opinion.
yeah the x1900xt might be better, i know on newegg it's cheaper.
i've not found one artical to prove that the 7900gt 512 isn't worth the extra 40 bucks though..


Can you not google? :roll:

Here you go...
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/922/
July 11, 2006 7:37:19 PM

and btw, what I stated I stand by... X1900XT is a better choice imo :wink:
July 11, 2006 7:41:11 PM

lol read the subject :wink:
Re: 7900 GT or X1900 XT (both with 512 MB)?

both with 512 mb

haha
July 11, 2006 7:44:15 PM

:roll: :roll:
:lol:  read my post! :mrgreen: :tongue:
July 11, 2006 7:52:39 PM

thanks for the link :D 
i wonder why the nv cards get a big drop with AA on?
still it don't look like a bad card, and they didn't compare it to the 1900xt.
isn't the x1900gt on everyones not to buy list?
July 11, 2006 7:53:39 PM

Quote:
lol read the subject :wink:
Re: 7900 GT or X1900 XT (both with 512 MB)?

both with 512 mb

haha


ok, obviously a 7900gtx with 512mb is better then a 7900gt with 512mb, and since the x1900xt is better then the 7900gtx, it is logically better then the 7900gt

and he nvr said comparing 7900gt 512mb directly, asked a question

they comparing x1900gt, because it is pretty much in the same price range, and the x190xt and xtx was meant for copmetitiopn with the 7900gtx wich is in the top high end class
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 7:54:49 PM

Quote:
lol read the subject :wink:
Re: 7900 GT or X1900 XT (both with 512 MB)?

both with 512 mb

haha


Yeah, I missed that but you missed who posted it, AND the point that there is no way the GT is going to outperform the GTX-512 just by adding an extra 256MB and not increasing the speeds, therefore XT>GTX>GT512>=GT256.
July 11, 2006 7:57:00 PM

as an example to the above, u put 512mb on a 7600gs, it stil comes now where close to beating a 7600gt at 256mb
July 11, 2006 8:01:41 PM

wow got all the ATI fanboys on me today lol..
i guess i'd better shut up before i get banned or go post in the nv forum :lol: 
i guess if the poor guy wants a $200 electric bill he should buy the x19000xt 8O


:lol:  newegg just got a batch of x1800xt in so i'm getting mine in a few days. this forum did help out alot in making my choice.. still the x1900xt is tempting but i'm concerned about my psu, heat, and electic bill...
July 11, 2006 8:08:27 PM

dude if u look at my specs u can see im no ati fanboy, and i dont think grape or the other guys are, a x1800xt is a great card, but when comparing 7900gt to x1900xt in terms of wich is more powerful the x19 is the obvious choice
July 11, 2006 8:17:36 PM

It was a joke dude. I know you were just giving the best advice, but like i said know one was showing the guy any specs or benchmarks.
people can type anything it's the net, backup what you say.
sorry if i offended you
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 8:34:53 PM

Quote:
i guess if the poor guy wants a $200 electric bill he should buy the x19000xt 8O


Maybe he just wants better performance and the superior Image Quality that [H]ardOCP gives to ATI - quote: "it becomes clear that ATI still holds the image quality crown". ;) 


Quote:
not trying to be a smart butt, but how can you guys sit and say the x1900xt is better than the 7900 gt 512 when that card is new and you have no benchmarks to prove it? all you're going on is you've seen the x1900xt perform.. lets see some proof guys...


I'm jumping in late, but here is another review of the 512MB GT. That brand anyway is OC'ed quite a bit over reference 256MB GT; it's running 550/1400. But it is still closer to stock 7900GT than it is to 7900GTX as you can see in that review. And considering how well the X1900XT deals with the 7900GTX, it's a pretty safe assumption that X1900XT will outperform the 7900GT 512MB.
July 11, 2006 8:46:33 PM

Ok, so far I can sum up that subjectively, most of you would go with the ATI - as of yet, there has not been a single link to show the performance difference between the two cards I have put up for choice.
About the PSU - problem is, I will upgrade to a DX10 card probably next year and was hoping I could get away from buying a new PSU right now - but, as it seems, those 110 Euro will be out of my pocket as well - will go for a 750W Thermaltake to be on the safe side (for the next year :( ).

Thanks for the input so far.

About the electric bill - if you calculate the differences the cards make - I should be more concerned about the price difference buying them instead of running them ( I do not play 24/7, maybe 2 hrs a day)
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 9:11:46 PM

Quote:
wow got all the ATI fanboys on me today lol..


Hey n00b, seriously you're acting like an A$$, and that's why you got jumped. And acting like an nVidiot who thinks it's just about the logo on the boards shows you really don't know WTF you're talking about. ReRead the posts, do some more rersearch and then figure out where your place is in the world, because if all you're going to do is challenge people and then back down saying their Fanbois, then seriously stick to forums that tolerate blind loyalty.

Quote:
i guess i'd better shut up before i get banned or go post in the nv forum :lol: 


Don't bother, we won't tolerate it there, just like we won't tolerate it in any other forum. Fanbois can go post in their circle-jerk forums.

Quote:
i guess if the poor guy wants a $200 electric bill he should buy the x19000xt 8O


Typical nVidiot comment.
If I were to run an X1900XT 24/7 alongside a GF7900GT-256, not even the more power consuming 512, by the end of the year the power difference would amount to maybe $5 on anyone's electric bill, and if that's a reason to buy a lesser card when you're already spending $300+ for the cards themselves, then really that's the statements of an idjit.

If it amounts to anywhere near $200 for you with normal useage then you need to reconsider your utility company. :roll:

Quote:
:lol:  newegg just got a batch of x1800xt in so i'm getting mine in a few days. this forum did help out alot in making my choice.. still the x1900xt is tempting but i'm concerned about my psu, heat, and electic bill...


PSU is a valid concern, but not that much different from an X1800Xt.
Heat goes out the case unlike that on the GF7900s so don't see it being a concern for anyone but a water cooled system.
And like I said, if the utility bill bothers you, you're shopping for the wrong parts, get a VIA Eden CPU with an integrated Chrome graphics chip, THEN you might see a $200 utility bill difference but only after two or three years.

Quote:
but like i said know one was showing the guy any specs or benchmarks.


Actually you can follow my link to all the proof you can get in the most number of benchies I've seen in a single review. So really why do I need to regurgitate it evertime a n00b like you shows up?

Here's a thought, why don't you post a link to something that backs up your $200 Electric Bill, I'd love to see that. :roll:

Considering that the 3 people you seem to be impugning here have all recommended many Geforce products in the past, present and likely future, you really need to re-examine whether the problem is us or you.

I'd give you a hint, but that'd be too easy. :tongue:

Oh, yeah and I'm only kidding about you being an A$$! :roll:
July 11, 2006 9:34:01 PM

Chances are you wouldn’t even save 1 USD a year by getting the 7900GT 512MB instead of the X1900XT.
July 11, 2006 9:38:45 PM

Question: can I seriously expect a big jump in our electricity bills just for having a X1800XT installed and not used for gaming? I ask because at home I don't really do too much PC game since I have my consoles here but the system will be on all day, everyday so it'll have to display stuff on my monitor.

In college though it doesn't matter because the electricity bill is paid for in housing. It's PC gaming or... bust.:twisted:
July 11, 2006 9:43:31 PM

wow got all the ATI fanboys on me today lol

you should learn to take a joke.

i guess if the poor guy wants a $200 electric bill he should buy the x19000xt

you should look in the dictionary for the word sarcasm

but like i said know one was showing the guy any specs or benchmarks

yeah you posted a link, the 7900gt 256mb against the x1900xt. not the 512 mb like the guy asked about.
but looking at that link I noticed the 7900 beat the x1900xt in some games.
i was just helping the guy get some links for the evga 512 7900gt, but you had to off the deep end and make this post a uncalled for flame war..
you're very mature, i can tell that by
Hey n00b, seriously you're acting like an A$$

read what the poster said who started this thread

Ok, so far I can sum up that subjectively, most of you would go with the ATI - as of yet, there has not been a single link to show the performance difference between the two cards I have put up for choice.
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 9:48:01 PM

If you don't game, it's pretty low versus the competition (like the difference between a 120mm fan, but as a part, it's still eating about 30-50W like leaving a lightbulb on, so it's not huge over the long haul really, but it's there.

Here's the biggest list I've found that shows only VPU power consumption (not the whole rig);
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/evga-790...
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 9:49:07 PM

Quote:
Ok, so far I can sum up that subjectively, most of you would go with the ATI - as of yet, there has not been a single link to show the performance difference between the two cards I have put up for choice.

There have bee a few links given to you. The lack of a large number of reviews to me is a sign of lack of enthusiasm. You are basically talking identical performanc to a 256MB OC 7900GT with the same clock speeds, and still far below a 7900GTX. Here is yet another review where the OC'ed 7900GT's including the 512MB just get spanked by the 7900GTX. Do you need links as to how well the X1900XT keeps up with the 7900GTX? If so, look here. The X1900XT is often ahead of the 7900GTX. Apart from that, just use your head to figure it out. If A&B trade blows and are about equal, and B spanks C overall, then A also spanks C overall. The 7900GT 512MB may win a few tests, but the X1900XT will win way more and also eat up the 7900GT in some games like Oblivion.
July 11, 2006 9:49:44 PM

Quote:
wow got all the ATI fanboys on me today lol

you should learn to take a joke.

i guess if the poor guy wants a $200 electric bill he should buy the x19000xt
ATI fanboy? My last 4 cards have been Nvidia and I'm currently using two 7800GTs (that I've been very satisfied with)

I'd rather be an ATI fanboy than an Nvidiot though; at least their product isn't overpriced while under delivering.
July 11, 2006 9:55:43 PM

people just let it die already..
it was a joke!!!!
sorry if i offended anyone.. that's the second time i've said sorry but you won't let it die.
i'll be more carefull with my jokes and sarcasm here...

once again sorry...
July 11, 2006 9:56:38 PM

x1900xt is better, the 7900gt isnt 512mb, its 256b, and imo the x1900xt is THE best card for gaming.
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 10:00:45 PM

Quote:

you should learn to take a joke.


You should learn to tell a joke, they're funny.

Quote:
i guess if the poor guy wants a $200 electric bill he should buy the x19000xt

you should look in the dictionary for the word sarcasm


What's the point in being sarcastic when you're the one being so adamant about posting specific facts.

Seriously back-peddal all you want chuckles, but you don't follow your own guidelines.

Quote:
but like i said know one was showing the guy any specs or benchmarks

yeah you posted a link, the 7900gt 256mb against the x1900xt. not the 512 mb like the guy asked about.


Howeevr if you look at the GTX, the same core with the same amount of memory (but better spec'd) with both being faster is outperformed more often than not. So how about you post something that refutes that.

Quote:
but looking at that link I noticed the 7900 beat the x1900xt in some games.


And that's what we've said, and specifically why we say things like more oftne than not. No CARD wins every benchmark, not even the top card the GF7900GX2).

Quote:
i was just helping the guy get some links for the evga 512 7900gt,


That may have been you first post, which I read and said... sure in a perfect world. But your second one had nothing to do with helping the OP, you were challenging people's advice, most of it was about ImageQuality which won't change regardless of memory size.

Quote:
but you had to off the deep end and make this post a uncalled for flame war..


No, you turned it into a Flame war by calling people Fanboys. So seriously look to yourself JackA$$!

Quote:
you're very mature, i can tell that by
Hey n00b, seriously you're acting like an A$$

read what the poster said who started this thread


I did read what he said, and answered it, I didn't say 512, until after you mentioned it, because as was mentioned 80 times before, it doesn't matter. XT>GTX in most situations, therefore XT>GT(256 or 512) in most situations. How hard is that to understand?

As for calling you a n00b, that's your title, look to the left. and you know what, it's n00bs like you that annoy the crap out of the rest of us because you don't know sh1t yet your willing to stir the pot because you don't know any better.

Quote:
Ok, so far I can sum up that subjectively, most of you would go with the ATI - as of yet, there has not been a single link to show the performance difference between the two cards I have put up for choice.


Did you/he want the specific brand too? Does it matter which lot number the chip is from?

I'm sure he can figure out how a chip works, and how a slower chip with slower memory isn't about to perform any miracles in the performance ring.
July 11, 2006 10:28:48 PM

Quote:
wow got all the ATI fanboys on me today lol

you should learn to take a joke.

i guess if the poor guy wants a $200 electric bill he should buy the x19000xt

you should look in the dictionary for the word sarcasm

but like i said know one was showing the guy any specs or benchmarks

yeah you posted a link, the 7900gt 256mb against the x1900xt. not the 512 mb like the guy asked about.
but looking at that link I noticed the 7900 beat the x1900xt in some games.
i was just helping the guy get some links for the evga 512 7900gt, but you had to off the deep end and make this post a uncalled for flame war..
you're very mature, i can tell that by
Hey n00b, seriously you're acting like an A$$

read what the poster said who started this thread

Ok, so far I can sum up that subjectively, most of you would go with the ATI - as of yet, there has not been a single link to show the performance difference between the two cards I have put up for choice.


are u blind i posted a link..........and here it is again....
http://firingsquad.com/hardware/oblivion_high-end_perfo...

it shows how the xt beats even the 7900gtx in one of the most demanding games to date......noob learn to read

and as for fanboy, i would buy a 7900gt over the x1900xt since i could get an overclocked one for about 200 less so obviously no im not a fanboy of ati, but hell even the x1800xt beats the 7900gtx in this game
July 11, 2006 11:31:11 PM

Quote:

i guess if the poor guy wants a $200 electric bill he should buy the x19000xt

you should look in the dictionary for the word sarcasm


Erm X19000XT what the hell is that, I think you should start learning how to use a keyboard. Wish I had one though 1000000 points on 3dmark :lol: .
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 11:45:48 PM

Hey that explains why it's a $200 electric bill.

It's an engineering sample with 2GB of 512bit memory, 272 unified shader units, 64 texture units, a coffee & panini maker, but suprisingly only 1 ROP! :twisted:
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 11:57:01 PM

:lol:  Sweet Grape, but does that engineering sample have GDDR3 or GDDR4? :twisted: :wink:
a b U Graphics card
July 12, 2006 12:26:43 AM

XDR-II !! :twisted:
a b U Graphics card
July 12, 2006 12:34:13 AM

8O 8O 8O *wipes away bandwidth drool*
July 12, 2006 12:36:13 AM

Let me guess it supports DX 11, has shader model 5 and 100 pixel pipelines as well :lol:  I want one :( .
July 12, 2006 8:52:44 AM

Sorry to those who posted links but usually there were no real tests that allowed to compare both options directly - and deducing results from various benchmarks always leaves a bitter taste.
The firingsquad-test involves a 7900GT but it is likely to show a 256-model, for instance.
And I am talking about regular clocked models, no need for any brand because differences between those will be marginal.

One more thing - guys, cool down, even if it is warm/hot/frying (depending on where you live) outside.
!