Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Barrier Eliminators: X1900GT and X1950XT from Sapphire

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 7, 2006 10:24:33 AM

Getting the job done and doing it well are two different things: Like so many other things, enthusiast-level graphics cards are all about the quality.
November 7, 2006 11:48:37 AM

Wow i got Really Excited when i saw

Quote:
Barrier Eliminators: X1900GT and X1950XT from Sapphire


with the X1950XTX cooler on it, i was like sweet at least someone is going to put that good cooler on the XT, but nope it was actually the X1950XTX. So you definetely want to fix that cause some people are going to get real confused
November 7, 2006 12:00:07 PM

Yup. Made the same mistake. I was thinking you guys got a pre-released X1950XT or something...Needs to be fixed.

Good review, I like the emphasis on video playback and encoding. AVIVO/VIVO explaination helps, always seem to get those confused.

I think you guys should also have put in some X1950 Pro scores, as that card now replaces the X1900GT in the $199 budget range.

~Ibrahim~
Related resources
November 7, 2006 12:48:37 PM

Quote:
Yup. Made the same mistake. I was thinking you guys got a pre-released X1950XT or something...Needs to be fixed.

Good review, I like the emphasis on video playback and encoding. AVIVO/VIVO explaination helps, always seem to get those confused.

I think you guys should also have put in some X1950 Pro scores, as that card now replaces the X1900GT in the $199 budget range.


May as well test the 1950Toxic too...
November 7, 2006 12:55:14 PM

Quote:
Wow i got Really Excited when i saw

Barrier Eliminators: X1900GT and X1950XT from Sapphire


Ditto. I was happy, then I was sad. I'm waiting for this X1950 XT to show up. :?

To the author or editor of the article: Please proof read more thouroughly before putting reviews on Tom's. (Although, as an X1950XTX review is was very good.)
November 7, 2006 1:16:18 PM

Quote:
Getting the job done and doing it well are two different things: Like so many other things, enthusiast-level graphics cards are all about the quality.


You should mention that AMD ATI intends to change the 1900GT specs. They want to lower the Core clock and increase the memory clock. Since you recommend the 1900GT, it would be important to say so, because the "new" 1900GT might not be as good. :idea:
November 7, 2006 2:01:09 PM

I would have to agree with the author on the racing games though. There needs to be more texture depth. But, this card is a great one and might have me sticking with ATi for my next build.
November 7, 2006 2:15:44 PM

Quote:

Barrier Eliminators: X1900GT and X1950XT from Sapphire

Is the title wrong? I hope to see a review when the REAL X1950XT comes out :D 
November 7, 2006 2:52:21 PM

this is BY FAR the most biased article ever produced.
comparing a mid range 7600gt vs 1900gt and 1950xtx costing 2x / 4x more respectively? and based on that recommanding a 1950xtx card just prior to the new g80 gt which will cost about the same while providing tons more performance/feature/quality?

at least be reasonable, compare it to a 7900 and 7950gx2.

7600gt is about $100 btw.

and whats up with the 1950gtx memory speed? isn't it supposed to use gddr4? rated at 2000mhz?
November 7, 2006 3:45:25 PM

Oh, hey, maybe next week you can pit the 8800GTX against a friggin' Voodoo 2. I'll be waiting on the edge of my seat.
November 7, 2006 3:58:51 PM

As others have said, I was really excited to see a review of the x1950xt, and then greatly disappointed that it was really yet another x1950xtx review.

I only found out about the xt version a few days ago when someone questioned a retailer that had it (it's up on Sapphire's site, and a few e-tailers), but I've not really found any good reviews. Way to get my hopes up, Toms! Grr.
a b U Graphics card
November 7, 2006 6:50:36 PM

Quote:


7600gt is about $100 btw.



Look it up, EVGA 256-P2-N555-AX cost around $200. I'm certain if you would have sent the writer a 7900GTX he'd have used it.
November 7, 2006 7:06:06 PM

Quote:


7600gt is about $100 btw.



Look it up, EVGA 256-P2-N555-AX cost around $200. I'm certain if you would have sent the writer a 7900GTX he'd have used it.

On newegg, the lowest priced 7600gt (eVGA 256-P2-N615-TX, slightly different model name) is ~$115 shipped, after rebate, so beggerking isn't far off, and the card isn't really at a comparable price range for the article.

Quote:
and whats up with the 1950gtx memory speed? isn't it supposed to use gddr4? rated at 2000mhz?


It is supposed to be 512 MB gddr4, contrary to what the article states, but Sapphire does indeed set the memory to 1550Mhz. Basically every other company sets it at 2000Mhz. I really don't know why the difference, especially considering that Sapphire's x1950xt's memory runs at 1800Mhz (really making one wonder which would be faster...).
a b U Graphics card
November 7, 2006 7:09:41 PM

The SuperClocked card is still faster than the standard 7600GT, and this model still cost around $200 (actually a bit more). Look up the specific card, EVGA 256-P2-N555-AX
November 7, 2006 7:20:41 PM

Plenty 7300GTs are around $100.

Not sure what is up with Sapphires mem. clock.

~Ibrahim~
a b U Graphics card
November 7, 2006 8:00:47 PM

Quote:


7600gt is about $100 btw.



Look it up, EVGA 256-P2-N555-AX cost around $200. I'm certain if you would have sent the writer a 7900GTX he'd have used it.

newegg, ~115

7900gs http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?Product...

Look it up, EVGA 256-P2-N555-AX cost around $200.
a b U Graphics card
November 7, 2006 8:35:05 PM

Quote:


7600gt is about $100 btw.



Look it up, EVGA 256-P2-N555-AX cost around $200. I'm certain if you would have sent the writer a 7900GTX he'd have used it.

newegg, ~115

7900gs http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?Product...

Look it up, EVGA 256-P2-N555-AX cost around $200.
Who cares about an overpriced, discontinued card like that? The ones that are still available are not all that much slower and on top of that are still a good deal under $200. The n554 which i think is like 20mhz slower on the core clock is $122 or so after rebate. The point is comparing the ati cards in this review versus a 7600gt was a bad move. A 7900gs would have been much more appropriate.

Ah, so it's slower and you won't even say how much it really cost...since rebates aren't a "sure thing". How much is your time worth when it takes you months of bickering to get a rebate...
a b U Graphics card
November 7, 2006 8:52:35 PM

LOL, add me to the excited to see a X1950XT review, only to be disappointed by it being an XTX list. I came to the comments just to see if anyone pointed that out. :p 
November 7, 2006 9:17:27 PM

Quote:


Ah, so it's slower and you won't even say how much it really cost...since rebates aren't a "sure thing". How much is your time worth when it takes you months of bickering to get a rebate...


The thing is, THEY DON'T EVEN BELONG IN THE SAME CLASS. 1900Gt was made to compete with 7900gt, got it? (256bit vs 256bit!!)

Even a 7900gs would be more appropriate.

even worse, 1950gtx should compete with 7950gx2, 1900xtx vs 7900gtx.

comparing a 256bit card vs 128bit card is plain stupidity.
especially when similarly cards (7900gs for example) costs less than 1900gt.
November 7, 2006 9:28:05 PM

Not to slam someone for their hard work but if you dont have an appropriate comparison, instead of comparing apples to oranges, just write a straight review without comparison.
a b U Graphics card
November 7, 2006 9:38:53 PM

$142 isn't bad! It's too bad the guy didn't have a 7900GS to compare, which is usually priced identically to the tested X1900GT ($200). But I happen to know as a fact that he did not have a 7900GS at the time.

The article was actually supposed to be about the affects of different settings on quality (HQV DVD) and performance (FPS lost due to increased quality), the value analysis should have contained 7900GS prices, but there wasn't any 7900GS data to go with it.

I'm sure your friends at nVidia will "get right on this" and send the author a complete collection of $150-$450 cards...to have in place for any future articles :p 
November 7, 2006 9:44:38 PM

What is all this talk of an X1900GTX? Such a card doesn't exist, as far as I know. It's the XTX people.

Maybe it's an honest mistake, but could Tom's be purposely mistitling the article in a shady ploy to get more hits? They surely know the anticipation surrounding the card.

Finally, the 7600GT is being used as a reference card. I could be wrong, but I believe it was THG's intent to use the card as a meter stick for the other two, much in the way a Pentium 4 is still used as a baseline 1.00 in the CPU charts. I just don't see why they'd compare two obviously unequal cards.
November 7, 2006 10:09:07 PM

Quote:
What is all this talk of an X1900GTX? Such a card doesn't exist, as far as I know. It's the XTX people.

Maybe it's an honest mistake, but could Tom's be purposely mistitling the article in a shady ploy to get more hits? They surely know the anticipation surrounding the card.

Finally, the 7600GT is being used as a reference card. I could be wrong, but I believe it was THG's intent to use the card as a meter stick for the other two, much in the way a Pentium 4 is still used as a baseline 1.00 in the CPU charts. I just don't see why they'd compare two obviously unequal cards.


1. ahh.. fixed it

2. this quote
"The real shocker is that this particular 7600GT model, EVGA's Superclocked Edition, is priced similarly to the X1900GT. Surely we see the value in the X1900GT, as increased capacity for high-quality visual settings adds nothing to its price."
November 7, 2006 10:27:41 PM

You have a good point. I concede. I thought the 7600GT was cheaper. Live and learn.
November 7, 2006 10:41:27 PM

Quote:


Ah, so it's slower and you won't even say how much it really cost...since rebates aren't a "sure thing". How much is your time worth when it takes you months of bickering to get a rebate...


The thing is, THEY DON'T EVEN BELONG IN THE SAME CLASS. 1900Gt was made to compete with 7900gt, got it? (256bit vs 256bit!!)

Even a 7900gs would be more appropriate.

even worse, 1950gtx should compete with 7950gx2, 1900xtx vs 7900gtx.

comparing a 256bit card vs 128bit card is plain stupidity.
especially when similarly cards (7900gs for example) costs less than 1900gt
.

Well don't take this the wrong way but i believe it the reviewers choice to include the 7600GT solely because it was priced similarly to the X1900GT. What your saying makes sense in theory but does not apply to the real world...

Saying we should compare these two cards(7900GT vs X1900GT) just beacuse there 256bit and 256bitt is like saying we should compare Intel's Pentium D(actually #..) clocked at 2.8Ghz to AMDs Athlon FX-62 clocked at 2.8Ghz. now how in the world does this make any sense since AMD's version cost some hundreds of dollars more

its like saying you're not supposed to compare a Core 2 Duo and a Athlon X2 because one is at 65nm and the other is at 90nm which is just plain bs... some thing some people don't get is that its all about the price and whats available at the time...so any other gibberish saying that this is comparing apples to oranges is nonsense...its all about the price and if the price is similiar then its apples to apples...

disclaimer: this doesn't apply to the ultra high end of products
November 7, 2006 10:56:46 PM

Anybody read this yet? Interesting...

Quote:
The X1900 GT will be going through a slight revision before its disappearance. Due to a shortage of original R580 cores that can clock to 575MHz, ATI is dropping the specs on the X1900 GT to 512MHz while attempting to make up for this by boosting memory speed to 1320MHz from 1200MHz. This is being done to keep the supply of X1900 GT parts steady until the X1950 Pro is able to take over. It is difficult to describe just how inappropriate it is to retard the specs on a long shipping product in this manner.
November 7, 2006 11:00:03 PM

Quote:


Well don't take this the wrong way but i believe it the reviewers choice to include the 7600GT solely because it was priced similarly to the X1900GT. What your saying makes sense in theory but does not apply to the real world...

Saying we should compare these two cards(7900GT vs X1900GT) just beacuse there 256bit and 256bitt is like saying we should compare Intel's Pentium D(actually #..) clocked at 2.8Ghz to AMDs Athlon FX-62 clocked at 2.8Ghz. now how in the world does this make any sense since AMD's version cost some hundreds of dollars more

its like saying you're not supposed to compare a Core 2 Duo and a Athlon X2 because one is at 65nm and the other is at 90nm which is just plain bs... some thing some people don't get is that its all about the price and whats available at the time...so any other gibberish saying that this is comparing apples to oranges is nonsense...its all about the price and if the price is similiar then its apples to apples...

disclaimer: this doesn't apply to the ultra high end of products


untrue/false info bolded
1. 7600gt are not priced similarly to 1900gt, since they are not priced the same, 256bit vs 128bit argument does make sense.
2.its not like that. 90nm vs 60nm does not affect performance at same clock rate. 256bit vs 128bit does.
November 7, 2006 11:31:25 PM

i cant help but notice the cards used in the review..

1950xtx vs. 1900gt vs. 7600gt

as of right now the prices of these cards on newegg are:

1950xtx $389 after $20 mail in rebate
1900gt $199
7600gt $109 after $20 mail in rebate
7900gs $166 after $20 mail in rebate

the 7600gt does not belong in this roundup! a 7900gs is equal (if not better) in performance than the 1900gt and is easier on the wallet as well.

what i really want to know is how well the x1950xtx fares against a card that cost half as much... the 7900gto that is :wink:
November 7, 2006 11:51:05 PM

Quote:


Well don't take this the wrong way but i believe it the reviewers choice to include the 7600GT solely because it was priced similarly to the X1900GT. What your saying makes sense in theory but does not apply to the real world...


well dont take this the wrong way but they are NOT similarly priced, in fact the x1900gt cost almost 2x as much as a regular 7600gt

Quote:


Saying we should compare these two cards(7900GT vs X1900GT) just beacuse there 256bit and 256bitt is like saying we should compare Intel's Pentium D(actually #..) clocked at 2.8Ghz to AMDs Athlon FX-62 clocked at 2.8Ghz. now how in the world does this make any sense since AMD's version cost some hundreds of dollars more



nobody tried to say that!

Quote:


its like saying you're not supposed to compare a Core 2 Duo and a Athlon X2 because one is at 65nm and the other is at 90nm which is just plain bs... some thing some people don't get is that its all about the price and whats available at the time...so any other gibberish saying that this is comparing apples to oranges is nonsense...its all about the price and if the price is similiar then its apples to apples...



i agree with you on this but what you fail to realize that these cards are not similarly priced! the 1900gt cost almost twice as much as a regular 7600gt!
November 8, 2006 12:00:36 AM

Quote:

Look it up, EVGA 256-P2-N555-AX cost around $200.


if that's the case, i offer to sell you that particular card for the heavily discounted price of 180 :wink:
November 8, 2006 12:06:20 AM

Quote:
The article was actually supposed to be about the affects of different settings on quality (HQV DVD) and performance (FPS lost due to increased quality), the value analysis should have contained 7900GS prices, but there wasn't any 7900GS data to go with it.

I'm sure your friends at nVidia will "get right on this" and send the author a complete collection of $150-$450 cards...to have in place for any future articles :p 


im sorry but somehow i missed that :oops: 

i hope nvidia gave the author a 8800gtx to review :D 
November 8, 2006 12:10:54 AM

Does seem a little odd to have a discontinued card in a performance for price review.Good article nonetheless.Maybe should have just stuck with the two ati cards as a comparison that way no one would be complaining.



"but ignore those "high frame rates" available from low-priced cards when used at low resolutions and reduced visual effects. "I hear ya on that one.
a b U Graphics card
November 8, 2006 2:35:22 AM

Or perhaps eVGA should have given the author a free "trade up" and written the expense off as low-cost promotion.
November 8, 2006 2:23:27 PM

dont get me wrong, the article was well written and i look forward to future articles from the reviewer. i just think the reviewer should have stated that the 7600gt was included as a reference card for comparison. somehow some of the readers including myself thought that this was somehow a direct comparison between the cards. anyhow thats all i wanted to say, cheers! :) 
November 8, 2006 2:28:27 PM

Quote:
dont get me wrong, the article was well written and i look forward to future articles from the reviewer. i just think the reviewer should have stated that the 7600gt was included as a reference card for comparison. somehow some of the readers including myself thought that this was somehow a direct comparison between the cards. anyhow thats all i wanted to say, cheers! :) 


I really don't understand how so many people got agitated about this review. Obviously, it was not a huge intercomparison that was meant to be comprehensive, so using the 7600GT as a standard seems logical enough to me.
November 8, 2006 3:02:58 PM

When I saw the title I thought PCIe

When I saw the comparison I thought.... wow thats odd, why the hell are we comparing these cards to a 7600? Maybe this is for AGP which would be interesting. Most of my systems are still stuck in the stone age, but there was nothing saying anything about AGP and I thought I remembered some faster cards being released for AGP anyway...

I left the article just a tad confused.

Comparing current new top end and midrange cards to a 3 generation old card is hardly fair and simply makes no sense. I don't care what overinflated price that specific card runs right now. There are much better suited cards available for the same pricepoint as the midrange card AND a review of new top end cards is incomplete without an appropriate comparison to like competition both in earlier versions of the same chip and in the competitor's products.

They should have just left the benchmarks off altogether if they couldn't provide a worthwhile or meaningful comparison. Couldn't they have at least pulled numbers from the THG VGA charts?
a b U Graphics card
November 8, 2006 3:12:52 PM

That's what's missing: The link to VGA charts! Obviously the system used was a little different, so while the numbers wouldn't be directly comparable between the chart and the article, the chart shows the other cards too.
January 26, 2007 10:37:47 PM

what do you guys think about the "strange moiré affect" mentioned at bottom of page 3 of the review?

is it a driver problem that will get/already been fixed?

And I imagine it is a problem across all ATI cards right? does x1950 Pro have this problem?

I am debating bewteen 7900GS and x1950Pro
!