Hi.
 
1) What's the difference between the x8xx series and the 1xxx from Ati?  I thought an x800 would be an old model and the x1600 + would be the new ones.  Is the difference simply that the 1000 series have HDR?  x850 has more than double the framerates of x1600 etc.
 
2) I'm choosing between an nVidia 7900GT and an x1900GT.  The 7900 is slightly more expensive, but seems to have better performance.  What are the other differences between them?  Which one is noisiest and runs hotter?
 
Thanks for any help.

 
I believe the x1xxx series from Ati has newer technology obviously and has shader model 3 support, oh and of course it has better performance. But, the thing is that the x850 is the top dog of the older series so of course it would still be better than the middle contenders of the newer series.
 
Im not sure about 7900gt and x1900gt though.

Remember to check the THG VGA charts, but it depends on what you want to do with it. The 7900GT pretty much outperforms the X1900GT in most all games save Oblivion, and given that the difference there is only about 3 frames average at 1600X1200 outdoors, you'd be better off going with the slightly cheaper 79. Out of curiousity, what motherboard do you have?
 
As for your question about heat and noise, I know that all the X1900 series cards run incredibly hot, and apparently the fan is pretty loud. That being said, however, I could only suppose that the 7900 is cooler and quieter; I haven't any experience with NVIDIA.

Yup, the 7900GT is a much better choice than the x1900GT, which is a crippled card.
 
The top x1800 card is about the same price and far better than the x1900GT.
 
The x1900XT on the otherhand, is a better card than any of the above, including the 7900GT, but its slightly more expensive.
 
On the other question, the 'x' series (x300, x600, x800, x850) is the 'equivalent' to the Geforce 6xxx series, the 'x1' series, (x1300, x1600, x1800, x1900) is equivalent to the Geforce 7xxx series.
 
Just as a Geforce 6800U will walk all over a 7300GT, and probably a 7600GT in alot of benchmarks, the x850 is a faster card than the low end x1xxx GPUs.

I haven't got the motherboard yet, as it may depend on the card (ie SLI or crossfire).
 
So basically, an x is old tech, but still pretty fast,
 
The x2 is new tech, with better capabilities, better for the future and playing newer games.
 
The 850 is still selling for X1900 and 7900GT prices, so that's why I was a little confused.  Who would be buying x850's when they are out of date?
 
The 7900GT would be cooler and quieter, and slightly faster.
 
Thanks for all the help, I'm gonna go 7900GT.  I only heard crossfire was easier and more compatilbe than SLI, which was why I was wavering.  The THG VGA charts go show the 7900GT's with a 10-15 frame increase, and they only cost slightly more.

The 'x' is ment as the roman numeral 'x', or 10, because otherwise after the 9xxxs (the same generation as the Geforce FX 5xxxs) we'd have been on Radeon 10xxxs, and ATi decided that was too long.
 
Hence we now have 'x' for 10 and 'x1' for 11
 
The x850 is still sold as an AGP card, as its the fastest ATi AGP card, the only  other decent one is the x1600, and thats a low end card (while the x850 was the fastest of its generation). As far as I know all x850 PCI-E cards you can find are old stock.
 
If you want to go Intel, you are probably slightly better off with Crossfire because the 975x supports it, and thats an amazing chipset while the nVidia ones are not as good on the Intel side.
 
Motherboard considerations aside, Crossfire is no easier than SLi these days, if anything its more complex.
 
Most Crossfire solutions need a Crossfire Master card and any normal card, there is generally only one master card per category and the pair run at the speed of the slowest.
 
For example, the x1900 Crossfire is the same speed at an x1900XT. if you pair those two up, thats fine, but if you pair it with an x1900GT, then the extra pipelines in the crossfire master are shut down and wasted, and if you pair it with an x1900XTX, the XTX is slowed down to the x1900 Crossfire speed. You also need a nasty external dongle thingy.
 
SLi *can* run cards from different vendors etc nowadays, even cards with different stock clocks (the faster card slows down) or different amounts of RAM (the extra on the larger card is shut down as with crossfire)
 
All that sound the same as Crossfire, but thats 'just in case', with SLi you can buy an identical 2nd card, rather than a limited range of master cards.
 
Also the equivalent of the dongle, the SLi bridge, is internal, and optional.
 
That advantage is moot on Intel imho untill nVidia release drivers that allow SLi on the 975.

Now there's a 7600GT AGP version which can be comparable to the X850 XT.  It's about about $50-$60 more expensive than the AGP X1600, though.

Crossfire setups usually dont put much stress on the CPU as much of the information is handled by the cards themselves, SLI is, however, useing the processor.

 
Eh?
 
Please show some information to back that up. I'm positive that that is completely baseless.
 
There is no more of a CPU load from SLi than from Single card or from Crossfire.

From: http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/articl [...] =24212&p=3
 
SLI vs. CrossFire
 
Now that we’ve dealt with the theory, it’s much easier to understand what ATI and NVIDIA have brought to the table. Despite all the fanfare on each side, NVIDIA’s SLI and ATI’s CrossFire have a lot in common.
 
Both Crossfire and SLI support alternate frame rendering. This is no surprise as it’s the simplest method to implement. Since it scales both vertex and pixel shading, you can expect most games to be using AFR.
 
CrossFire and SLI also both support split frame rendering. NVIDIA currently only supports horizontal split frame rendering. ATI supports both horizontal and vertical splits. Since load balancing is a critical issue for SFR, NVIDIA has implemented an on the fl y algorithm to determine where to split the frame. As this is done after each frame, it will adapt itself to the game environment.
 
ATI’s split frame rendering uses a predetermined value to split the screen. The optimal split location is determined by ATI after they’ve profiled the game.  
 
Right here!!!
:::::They believe this is more effective since there’s no CPU overhead associated with calculating the load after each frame. This method, however, is not the preferred way. ATI has long perfected the tile based splitting strategy for use in massive visualisation systems. ::::::
 
 
Now perhaps ive insinuated that it is a 'MAJOR CRUSHING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ROBOT OF DOOM'.  But it isnt, its just how they work. Both are fast, but the ATI card tends to do more on its own.

since its obvious your looking for a cheaper card. get an X1800xt or get owned.

where do you live and what internet vendors are available.  
 
  the 7900gt is a goood card but so is the x1800xt if you can find it for roughly the same price.  in fact i am sure it is cheaper in some places.
 
  oh and lets not get into a CF vs SLI debate.  sure i favour CF but this has been discussed lots of times.  leave it.
 
  also scissor mode is not even a preferred method in crossfire so why use it as a comparison.  AFR is the preferred method.

Remember guys, the OP's needs are what important here, not your preferences on video cards.
 
X1800XT is not cool, nor quiet, though it is a great card.
 
The 7900GT doesn't deal with eye candy like ati gpus, but has a good frame rate to price ratio, and if cool/quiet is an important issue, its a no brainer.
 
Though if you do go 7900GT, check out evga or xfx so replacing the stock fan doesn't void your warranty (ie arctic cooling accelero x1  or zalman vf900 unless you're an h2o freak)
 
little out of date, but i couldn't find anything reliable and more recent:
 
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/v [...] 006_5.html
 
And yes, x850 for the price, not worth it.  Though the x800xl pci-e for $100 is almost as good a deal as the 7600gt, but no sm3.0...

 
Depends on the fan speed you run with.  I know @ 50% fan speed it wasnt anywhere near loud, and still kept the GPU within a comfortable temp range.
* A great card it is indeed*  
 
Your right though, it is a no-brainer -->  The X1800XT would get my vote.        

The 7900GT and the X1900GT trade blows but the 7900GT edges it out.  If the 7900GT is only "slightly" more expensive, then I'd choose it.  If the 7900GT was a lot more expensive, then I'd get the X1900GT.  If you can find an X1800XT cheaper than the 7900GT or at the same price as either the X1900GT or 7900GT, then get it.
 

If an X850XT=7600GT, then a 6800U is at best, barely equal to the 7600GT.

If an X850XT=7600GT, then a 6800U is at best, barely equal to the 7600GT.
 
I hadnt really thought about it any further than 16 pipes vs. 12 pipes, but I suppose the 7600GT is clocked *much* higher.
 
Either way, my point was that the latest generation card isnt always faster than the best of the last generation

Thanks for the help everyone!

 
Just for reference, I just got my x850XT PE for $100 from newegg. It fits my budget and performance needs

If an X850XT=7600GT, then a 6800U is at best, barely equal to the 7600GT.
No, a x850xt is not a 7600GT.  It has double the memory interface (256bit against the puny 128bit of the 7600GT), and 4 more pipelines (compared to the 12 of the 7600GT).
 
The higher clocks do not do anything.  My x850xt runs at 575MHz core (compared to the 580MHz core of the 7600GT) stable, and at 1250MHz mem (compared to the 1500MHz ram).  At just 5MHz core and 250MHz ram away, it blows any 7600GT away.

At the heat remarks:
 
Yes and no. I've owned both the 7900GT from eVGA, with the special KO cooler, and my current X1900XT. Both great cards.
 
Now, the X1900XT can throttle down its clock speeds when not being used in a 3D application, like a game. The 7900GT cannot, so it runs at the same speed all the time.  
 
Currently in Windows, with no game running, the X1900XT is running at a cool 55C (well, cool for a video card ). It's actually been as low as the mid 40s, I think. The 7900GT stayed at around 60C.  
 
In a game, I've seen the Radeon get up to a little over 80C. The GeForce only got up to about low-mid 70s.
 
So, the Radeon can run hotter, but it's actually cooler when it's not being used.
 
Oh, and the X1900XT is faster, but it's also a little louder.
 
Oh, and if it's between the X1800XT, the X1900GT, and the 7900GT, I'd take the nVidia. Now, if it came down to the X1900XT and the 7900GT, I'd go with the Radeon.
 
Either way, if you do go for nVidia, get an eVGA. Their warranty lets you overclock or change the stock cooler without voiding it, which is why I got one of their cards originally. Then I broke it, RMA'd it to newegg, not eVGA, and got the Radeon because I wanted a two-slot cooler, no hassle, and more video memory for a 1680x1050 resolution.

Hahahahah!!!  Thanks for the laugh.
 
Yo