Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Another: x1900xt 256MB or 7900gto

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 25, 2007 12:11:19 AM

MSI 7900gto
Sapphire x1900xt 256MB
I'm probably going to go ahead and answer my own question, because I love NFS Carbon, and it's one of the main reasons I want a new videocard. Simply because GeForce 7*** cards SUCK at NFS Carbon. However, I still would appreciate any input, I'm buying tomorrow. Specs are in sig. I will also be getting a new PSU, I was thinking the Antec SmartPower 2.0 500watt, but any input on any other PSU would be appreciated as well. I have 400$ to spend CAD, so it doesn't have to be these cards, but they look to be the best deals. For anyone who wants, use www.pricecanada.com for finding cheap parts from Canadian online retailers.

The games I play most are:
FEAR
Quake 4
Prey
NFS Most Wanted
NFS Carbon
Source games (HL2:E1, etc..)
Age of Empires 3

More about : x1900xt 256mb 7900gto

January 25, 2007 1:06:50 AM

I Personally would go with the 7900GTO ( no offence to ATI) Because the GTO version of 7900 is exactly the same as the GTX
just clocked down. All you Have to do is clock up the memory speeds to GTX or just flash the GTX Bios and it should run like a GTX.

better performance and is cheaper :D 
January 25, 2007 11:05:01 AM

Quote:
I Personally would go with the 7900GTO ( no offence to ATI) Because the GTO version of 7900 is exactly the same as the GTX
just clocked down. All you Have to do is clock up the memory speeds to GTX or just flash the GTX Bios and it should run like a GTX.

better performance and is cheaper :D 


Thats why it's such an attratctive deal, even if it doesn't perform well in a few games..


Quote:
I'm glad to help, I'd go with this card
http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct...
and a 550w psu if that site has one for less than $100, recommended brands are ocz, pc p&c, enermax, and silverstone, but the antec is fine if you can get a 550or 600w modle (the efficiency isn't that great on antec psu's)


Is the x1950xt really worth the extra 40$ over the x1900xt? Considering my cash situation, I think my options are the Antec Smartpower 2.0 500watt and the x1950xt or I could spend a few bucks more and get the x1900xt and OCZ 600watt GameXStream.
Related resources
January 25, 2007 11:11:55 AM

Quote:
Is the x1950xt really worth the extra 40$ over the x1900xt? Considering my cash situation, I think my options are the Antec Smartpower 2.0 500watt and the x1950xt or I could spend a few bucks more and get the x1900xt and OCZ 600watt GameXStream.


You Dont need a power supply over 500 Watt to run a single X1950.
In this article this guy used 2 8800GTX and over clocked it and it only reached about mid 400W. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36066
January 25, 2007 11:27:25 AM

Quote:
Is the x1950xt really worth the extra 40$ over the x1900xt? Considering my cash situation, I think my options are the Antec Smartpower 2.0 500watt and the x1950xt or I could spend a few bucks more and get the x1900xt and OCZ 600watt GameXStream.


You Dont need a power supply over 500 Watt to run a single X1950.
In this article this guy used 2 8800GTX and over clocked it and it only reached about mid 400W. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36066

Agreed about the PSU not needing to be over 500Watt for any average system, but i definetly don't agree with the link there ;) 
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2007 2:07:59 PM

Quote:
I Personally would go with the 7900GTO ( no offence to ATI) Because the GTO version of 7900 is exactly the same as the GTX
just clocked down. All you Have to do is clock up the memory speeds to GTX or just flash the GTX Bios and it should run like a GTX.

better performance and is cheaper :D 

Um, the GTO is not exactly like the 7900GTX. It's like the original first run of 7900GTX's that had issues with the memory clocked so high. You are NOT guaranteed GTX speeds on a GTO, if you were they would have sold them as GTX's. We have discussed this here many time before.
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2007 2:21:13 PM

The X1900XT is a bit above the GTO at stock speeds, supports some features the GTO won't, and is a few bucks cheaper. So it gets my vote. If you luck out on the GTO overclock, then the two cards OC'ed would trade blows pretty evenly. But, there are games that the X1900XT would spank the GTO (and even the GTX). Need for speed carbon, like you said, being one of them as the X19xx's do very well in that game. http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_c...
I can vouch for these NFS:Carbon results as my new X1950XT way outperforms the X1800XT it replace. And my 7800GT is just pitiful in this game compared the X1800XT even.

Here is a 7900GTO review, you can see at stock speeds more often than not the X1900XT 256MB beats the GTO. Games like Oblivion, it's a huge margain.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_7900...


Anyway, I think they are close enough and trade blows that you should get the brand you prefer. Max OC they could be equal, but you may out of nowhere fry your GTO too as others have reported. At stock speeds overall the X1900XT is a little better and gets my vote, especially taking into acount your games and the GF7's pitiful NFS carbon performance.
January 25, 2007 3:49:40 PM

Amongst the games you mentioned MW, Carbon, FEAR and maybe even AOE3 and EP1 should receive little to no benefit from the extra 256MB at not so high res unless you plan to use Tripple Buffering. So for these games 512MB VS 256MB becomes secondary, but for Quake 4 the difference will be substancial and you will need to reduce the eyecandy in Quake 4.


I don't know if the performance is improved or not, 1900xt's play Carbon very well and atleast the initial performance for Geforce 7 was horrible, may have(probably) improved by now.

AOE3 is a game which will run much much better on ATI cards. A 1950XTX is probably faster than a 8800GTS and close to a 8800GTX in this game, so a 1900xt becomes a pretty obvious choice here as long as we are not considering the VRAM.

EP1, in case lack of VRAM is of no significance, the 1900xt should be better. As a simple rule, if a game doesn't benefit measureably from the additional VRAM, the 1900XT will be faster. If you had to choose between a 1900xt 512 and 7900gtx 512 both at the same price, a 1900xt is usually the prefered choice.
Now, Quake 4, ATI's drivers opengl are supposed to be improved by now, but still 512MB 7900GTO should better.

1900XT
Better IQ
HDR + AA
Faster card

7900GTO
512MB(a huge, night and day benefit for many current and near future games)
Better experience with nvidia(atleast mine)
January 25, 2007 3:51:17 PM

That is a useless PSU and definitely inadequate for the 1900xt. It only gives 25A @ 25C(300watts) on 12V rails whereas the 1900xt commands a min of 30A.
January 25, 2007 4:55:03 PM

Hey thanks alot for your input akshayt and Pauldh. You guys definitely confirmed what I've been thinking. ATI's current x19** cards can pretty much stomp Nvidia's GeForce 7 series now in most games, especially the more popular ones (FEAR, AoE3, Carbon, Oblivion, etc..). Except for OpenGL games. However, while the 7900gto would outperform an x1900xt 256MB in Quake 4 at high quality, in Prey, the x1900xt would do better. And I only play games at 1280x1024 max, so an x1900xt will have no problems with Quake 4. Frames are alot more important to me then IQ. I run FEAR right now at 1024x768, med quality, 8xaf, with shadows and volumetric lighting off. I absolutely must have high frames especially for FPS games.

An example of how worthless Nvidia's GeForce 7 cards are in Carbon, I ran painful race at 1280x1024 everything max (0xaa 0xaf), and by observing my frames, my min was probably 8fps, average was about 19fps. I rarely went over 30fps. While my buddy can run the same game everything cranked and he has AMD Opteron 165, 1gb DDR400, x1950pro, and he would almost never drop under 30fps. Even though Nvidia's counterpart is quite a bit faster then my 7800gs, it still goes to show it's weakness.

While I never directly went out and asked the question that has been asked a million times, I'm glad you guys took the initiative. Does the extra 256MB really help? I don't think it does, although I'll probably still run games that require huge amounts of memory at an average texture quality. I have the G15 keyboards, and I can monitor how much memory is being used while I play. And so far the only games I can't run cranked due to lack of memory is Doom3, Quak4 (ultra quality), and FEAR. When my system memory gets used up I notice when I turn a corner the games pauses for a split second to load the textures. Again, to remedy this I just turn down texture quality, that doesn't bother me. I rather have a SHARP image then one with alot of eye candy (FEAR @ 1280x1024 shadows off vs 1024x768 shadows on, I rather have 1280, but my card can't even do that :p )

And thanks for the link to the 7900gto review that has both cards in question Pauldh. While in almost all benchmarks the cards stay within 10% of eachother, but the x1900xt does dominate NFS Carbon, Oblivion. I don't see the 7900gto dominating in anything. In fact in Quake 4 it only beats the x1900xt by 4.1fps at my res of 12x10.

Thanks again for your helps guys.

While we discussed the x1900xt to be the better deal, what PSU should I go with then? I might just go with the OCZ GameXStrem 600watt, but I don't want to spend the extra money if I don't have to. These are the PSUs I'm looking at:

Silverstone SST-ST50EF-Plus 500Watts
Thermaltake TR2 500Watts
Enermax NoiseTaker II EG-495P-VE 485Watts (No active PFC :(  )
Antec Smartpower 2.0 500watts

Also, one more question, x1950xt vs x1900xt, is it worth 40$ more to get the x1950xt?
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2007 5:16:09 PM

And even if you do get the GTO to GTX speeds it's still a lesser card in the most edemanding games, especially the ones he seems to be interested in.

Xbit once again looks at the XT versus GTX-512 in their 7950GT review;
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce7...

and even thought it's 512MB on the XT that isn't as much of an impact as the GTX-512, which is way faster than the GTX-256

In this case even with an insance OC the improvement isn't enough to tip the balances, but the savings may be something to consider, but if it's about the money then I'd say wait a few weeks for the new products to launch an redefine the market again.
January 25, 2007 6:28:58 PM

I would stay away from all ATI cards. I have always used nvidia and never had a problem, but, like you, heard that the x1950xt out-performed the 7 series nvidia cards, so I bought one...

It doesnt work, so i returned it for another....

this one doesnt work...

I have been looking through several different forums for a solution and found many people with the same problem.

Anyway, I will never buy another ATI card no matter how much better they are said to be over nvidia. Their drivers sucks, their compatibility sucks and thier customer service sucks.
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2007 7:18:32 PM

While you are of course totally entitled to your opinion, stating that because you bought one single ATI card and had issues with it, and will never buy another makes you look like a noob not worth listening too. Many people may even assume it was user error like not having enough power or clearing out the old drivers. No offense intended, just stating how it looks.

Many of us have owned or have used numerous to countless numbers from both companies, and know that avoiding either brand totally is pretty foolish. They are pretty equal with their Windows (XP not vista ) :wink: drivers, game issues, and reliability.

And shoot, imagine if you were one of the hundreds of people in this thread who RMA's numerous GF7900's only to receive a bad card back again. Would you then give up on NV and stick to Intel or Matrox? Some of those guys had 5 bad GF7900 cards!

To be honest, I did avoid the 7900GT's for this reason back then, but also because the X1800XT generally beat it for the same price. But I have since bought two 7900GS's because they were a short lived bargain and offered at the time the best bang for the buck.
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2007 7:27:23 PM

ATI's 30 Amp 12v rail requirement is assuming a loaded system and is also talking about rated spec. I assume they know that PSU's aren't operating at 100% efficiancy and may not sustain those ratings. That Antec 500W SP 2.0 has a 17 amp and 19 amp 12v rail (36 Amp total), which should have no problem powering a X1900.

I have an X1800XT that is running in an A64 system with the smart power 2.0 450W power supply without issues. I have also run a 7800GT in an A64 for a while on the SP 2.0 400Watt PS. I actually like what those power supplies offer for the price. Plus they are quiet. That's one reason I buy Antec TX640B cases and SOnata 2's as they come with SP 2.0 400W and 450W PSU's. I did upgrade my TX640B to a True Control (Truepower) 550W though.
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2007 7:45:03 PM

What kind of issues? Can't imagine a 550W not powering that rig uless somethings wrong with it or a compatibility issue. :?

To be honest I probably have already built 20+ systems around one of the Smartpower 2.0 power supplies without stability issues or one failing yet. I have 6 more new ones in stock right now. Is that pushing my luck? 8O

But a buddy of mine who has also used a bunch of them had a 400W go bad, running an A64, 7800GT, 2 HDD's, 2 Optical's. But it was stable even in that loaded system until it blew.
January 25, 2007 7:55:16 PM

Quote:
What kind of issues? Can't imagine a 550W not powering that rig uless somethings wrong with it or a compatibility issue. :?

To be honest I probably have already built 20+ systems around one of the Smartpower 2.0 power supplies without stability issues or one failing yet. I have 6 more new ones in stock right now. Is that pushing my luck? 8O

But a buddy of mine who has also used a bunch of them had a 400W go bad, running an A64, 7800GT, 2 HDD's, 2 Optical's. But it was stable even in that loaded system until it blew.


I'd have to agree that most people completely blow the power requirements, for most machines, completely out of proportion. I am using a 380watt cheap-a** power supply to power what I have now, so telling me an x1900xt will require an additional 170watts minimum is ridiculous. However, having extra power is alot better then having just enough. But what will happen, is I will probably build my box to something actually a little more reputable, and build new once DX10 becomes solid. My build will probably look a little something like this:

Case: Unsure of at the moment, maybe Praetorian 731.
*PSU: Whatever PSU I decide to buy today, probably the Antec Smartpower 2.0 500watt.
Motherboard: 650i chipset, unsure of exact make/model
*CPU: My C2D 6300
Memory: 2GB of something.
*Videocard: X1900xt
*HDD: WD 2500KS X2
*DVD+/-RW: LG 16x

*Already own (or will own hopefully beginning of next week)

Once that machine is built, I wont be really adding to it. Like I said, I'll just start over.

Thanks again for everyones help! I never got such overwhelming and speedy responses from you guys!
January 25, 2007 7:56:38 PM

lol im not so sure about nvidia sucking with carbon... i play on 1280 with full aa and af with no problem =P. anyway, i considered the 1900xt too, but i bought my 7900gto for 250 CAD :D .
January 25, 2007 7:59:09 PM

Quote:
Then I probably just got unlucky, but I have heard that antec's quality is slipping


I'd have to agree, Antec used to make one of the best PSUs, well, Antec and Enermax. Go figure that Enermax is second class, and Antec is turning into a budget brand for PSUs.

And even though Antec's quality is slipping, when you don't have alot of money to spend, sometimes you have to get second best ( or four hundred-thirty-first best :p )
January 25, 2007 8:02:00 PM

Quote:
lol im not so sure about nvidia sucking with carbon... i play on 1280 with full aa and af with no problem =P. anyway, i considered the 1900xt too, but i bought my 7900gto for 250 CAD :D .


I'm sure, my buddies system:

Asus P5B-E
Intel C2D E6400
2GB OCZ memory
7900gtx

He can't do 1280x1024 max quality and stay above 30fps. Sad.

And remember, everyone defines 'playable' a little different, you might not mind playing at 20fps. While others just can't play with those kind of conditions at all. Run fraps, do a race, benchmark, and post those benchmarks. I got 10$ saying that you will not get an average frame rate of 30fps+ with everything maxed, including motion blur, 4xaa, 8xaf.

Edit: Here are a couple sources of how much Nvidia sucks at NFS Carbon

http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_c...
http://reviews.cnet.com/Nvidia_GeForce_8800_GTX/4505-89...

Something a little of topic, but I find this hilarious!
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/geforce-8800-sli/i...
The 2x 8800gtx just squeezes by as playable. But it's definitely not fluid gameplay with those frames.
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2007 8:04:28 PM

Quote:
And even if you do get the GTO to GTX speeds it's still a lesser card in the most edemanding games, especially the ones he seems to be interested in.


Yeah, a few games like Carbon, Oblivion, or Double Agent, the X1900XT would creme the GTO and beat a GTX too. I tell ya, I went through this with a good friend of mine (favors NV) when he spent quite a bit more on a GTO than he could have bought the 256MB X1900XT for. Oh well, I tried, but he fell victom to grasping at the then only bright spot in the GF7900 line(bang for buck wise), and the talks of OC'in to GTX speeds. Nothing wrong with the GTO, just rarely (if ever) has it offered the best performance for the buck.

Quote:
Xbit once again looks at the XT versus GTX-512 in their 7950GT review;
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce7...

and even thought it's 512MB on the XT that isn't as much of an impact as the GTX-512, which is way faster than the GTX-256


Good link there BTW. I wish they would do one of those for about 10-15 mid to top AGP cards. Sweet to include so many games. Intersting they do state X1900XT >= 7900GTX and they didn't even test Carbon or Double Agent. Also weird when some sites show X1900XT destroying the 7900GTX in Oblivion and others show them closer. Makes me feel the ones where they are close aren't the most stressful outdoor areas.

Quote:
In this case even with an insance OC the improvement isn't enough to tip the balances, but the savings may be something to consider, but if it's about the money then I'd say wait a few weeks for the new products to launch an redefine the market again.

Yeah, currently I say X1900XT over GTO(stock speeds or both OC'ed), come the new product launches, price and availability changes, etc. Who knows if we will still be talking about either of these cards.
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2007 8:20:08 PM

Quote:
I got 10$ saying that you will not get an average frame rate of 30fps+ with everything maxed, including motion blur, 4xaa, 8xaf.

With motion blur, I'd definately agree. And he should use swingman view for the bet as that gives a little fps hit too.
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2007 8:49:33 PM

:lol: 

I'm just amazed how well the X19xx's do in that game and how poorly the X1800XT did.

My own non overclocked results of a 2 lap circuit in swingman view: (each tested 3 times with same results)

1280x1024 4x/16x max quality but no motion blur.
X1800XT ave 28 fps
X1950XT ave 43 fps

1280x1024 4x/16x max including motion blur.
X1800XT ave 22 fps
X1950XT ave 34 fps


Using the in car view resulted in 3-5 fps more fps over those results.
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2007 8:52:02 PM

Quote:
but the x1900xtx absolutely demolished it, which has slower memory and only 25mhz more on the core than the x1950xt, so I think the x1950xt is the better buy, especially if you oc it to x1950xtx speeds,


Well I wouldn't agree based on what you wrote above, but the spirit of your reply I do agree with. Let me explain, you said the X1900XTX, and the post is about the X1900XT as I was talking about. For the X1900XTX it actually uses the same Samsung BJ11 memory chips as the X1950XT so the memory overclocking potential is the same (spec'd at 1.1ns/900Mhz), however the X1900XT (not XTX) uses BJ12 memory which is spec'ed at 1.2ns nearer 800Mhz. So the X1900XT has a hard limit on potential so would be better than the original recommendation, but the X1900XTX should have the same potential OC-ability as the X1950XT. The X1950XTX has the new GDDR4 BC09 chips rated at 0.9ns or 1100Mhz, so it has alot more headroom still, and achieves it at less power draw.

But I don't know it any X1900XTXs are close to the same price as an X1950XT, but your argument is good for the advantage of the X1950Xt over the X1900XT though.
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2007 9:13:17 PM

I have not even tried to OC the X1950XT. I don't even have the HIS software installled for running the card at it's advertised Turbo speeds. But the X1800XT I OC'ed. It added a good 6-7 fps to those Carbon results, whick made a big differnece for that game in playing maxed without motion blur.
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2007 9:20:25 PM

Quote:

Good link there BTW. I wish they would do one of those for about 10-15 mid to top AGP cards. Sweet to include so many games.


Yeah I agree, even Digit-Life hasn't revamped their AGP list since last March, and it has nowhere near the number of tests that Digit-Life does (imagine the hours for 10-15 AGP cards times that many test runs).

You'd pretty much have to have parrallel setups, because one rig doing all that would take weeks, even without breaks for driver cleaning and re-installs, etc.


Quote:
Intersting they do state X1900XT >= 7900GTX and they didn't even test Carbon or Double Agent. Also weird when some sites show X1900XT destroying the 7900GTX in Oblivion and others show them closer. Makes me feel the ones where they are close aren't the most stressful outdoor areas.


Exactly! The thing about Oblivion is that people monkey around with things like grass settings and then test at lower levels to achieve 30fps avg @ 16x12 as if that's more valid than 40fps with things enabled at 1280x1024. Why are you buying Oblivion if you aren't going for the immersive environement? If it's just for story line and combat then people should play with OldBlivion mods. :roll:

The most important thing about Xbit's reviews is they show the min FPS, and that's what really shows in Oblivion, and also what show the X1600 and X1900's strengths, because while they may offer 30fps, it's a consistent 30fps with dips to like 24 fps, meawhile the GF7s tend to jump around more, especially outside.

Look at this [H] review;
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI1OCwz...

I mean who plays Oblivion with NO GRASS! :roll: Sure make the grass bigger if you want, but removing it, you might as well play wireframe!
At least [H] points out that's an issue with the screenies at the bottom of the page, but some reviewers just turn stuff off/down to eliminate the low end drops on the GF7 series, and that's ridiculous. I just wish they played oblivion apples to apples to show the stress drops between systems.
Anyone who's played Oblivion knows it's about the environment as well as the rest of the stuff, and good solid FPS not 100fps followed by 5 fps, is what matters. Don't get me started. :mrgreen:

Quote:
Yeah, currently I say X1900XT over GTO(stock speeds or both OC'ed), come the new product launches, price and availability changes, etc. Who knows if we will still be talking about either of these cards.


Yep, exactly. I like the chances of the GF8600 series, and the X2600 series. I of course would also like to know what their laptop prospects are. BTW, I finally decided to try and give Vista a pass for the first little while. I thought some of the DRM stuff would dissapear, but nope, and I like the media side of things too much to allow my system to get that locked up, and I speak as someone with over 300 store bought DVD and more than that CDs (and DVD-Audio, AND btw, I suggest you get Love by the Beatles if you have DVD-Audio, AWESOME, and cheap [you can get it bundled in a 2 disc set, CD&DVD-Audio, for $2 more than just the CD!]).

Speaking of Cheap the PSP is selling at WalMart up here for $148 CAD, it's such a good price I had to buy a second one. :twisted:
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2007 9:44:37 PM

Quote:
Where have you seen 1.2ns for the X1950XT?


Yep, seems you're right. :oops: 
Sorry, my mistake folks, the early Sapphires at launch were Samsung memory, but it looks like everyone including Sapphire has switched to the 1ns Hynix HY5RS573225A FP-1 Memory. I guess the Samsung running at spec was a little too much.

My mistake, just rememebering the launch info (of same memory), and hadn't checked if that had changed.


D'Oh!

Oh and PS I was saying the X1950XT were using the BJ11 same as the X1900XTX, which is 1.1ns, it's the original X1900Xt that's the BJ12 at 1.2ns.The X1950XT would be overclokcing the BJ12 by about 880mhz if it were running at 900mhz.
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2007 9:54:58 PM

Oh no problem, it obviously happens to the best once in a while.

I tell ya, you had me worried and I was about to yank the iceQ to see for myself. My satisfaction in the card would go way down if I didn't have 1.0ns as I do plan to OC it someday. Seriously, i am lovin' it, but if it was 1.2ns I'd feel jipped. :roll:

Anyway, I see Tekbunker shows 1.0ns for the Sapphire, but the His reviewer doesn't seem to yank the cooler. *sigh of relief*
a b U Graphics card
January 25, 2007 10:02:16 PM

Quote:
Exactly! The thing about Oblivion is that people monkey around with things like grass settings and then test at lower levels to achieve 30fps avg @ 16x12 as if that's more valid than 40fps with things enabled at 1280x1024.

Good point. That's one reason I like FS with their max detail testing. I'd rather have low results than have the results shaped by messing no grass and other settings. Their foliage tests are the ones I look at most for Oblivion.

But It's fun to disable grass and see the difference in both IQ and fps. But playing with no grass...no thanks. :roll: (what was [H] thinking on that one?)
January 26, 2007 1:11:11 AM

ooh...i've never done any benches :S. and i hate the motion blur, so i guess thats maybe a reason why ^^. what program did you use to bench ?
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2007 1:19:31 AM

Fraps. There is a free version too. Just google it.
January 26, 2007 1:30:18 AM

awesome.. thx!
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2007 1:45:42 AM

Hey, FYI I just got a X1950Pro and I play NFS Carbon.
Don't know what the frame rates are really, but it runs very smooth and fast, looks great with everything maxed in the game, and you have a better overall rig than I have.
January 26, 2007 2:04:31 AM

Here are some NFS Carbon benchmarks I did. While my 7800gs isn't no top-performer, it is an Nvidia GeForce 7 card. Here are the settings I ran it at, unless stated otherwise:




First run: Everything maxed, World detail set at high, not maximum, and 8x af was enabled through Nvidia's control panel.
Avg: 26.456 - Min: 21 - Max: 35

Second run: Same as above, motion blur off.
Avg: 36.959 - Min: 30 - Max: 48

Third run: Same as above, motion blur off, shader detail at medium
Avg: 46.221 - Min: 37 - Max: 60
*This is playable to me. Nothing else is smooth enough for game play

Fourth run: Same as first run, but camera view is from inside car
Avg: 27.303 - Min: 22 - Max: 39

I raced on the:

using the Nissan 240SX from the bonus cars section. (Wow that thing has uber handling, so does the other unlockable cars. The Eclipse and the MR2)

so I had no opponents, and traffic was turned off, so keep in mind that these benchmarks have pretty high framerates for those reasons.

EDIT: And just for the hell of it, here is the game MAXED (1280x1024, 4xaa, 8xaf, everything set as high as possible)
Avg: 15.894 - Min: 12 - Max: 20
January 26, 2007 2:07:06 AM

Quote:
Hey, FYI I just got a X1950Pro and I play NFS Carbon.
Don't know what the frame rates are really, but it runs very smooth and fast, looks great with everything maxed in the game, and you have a better overall rig than I have.


When I upgraded from an Athlon XP-M 2500+ @ 2.4ghz to a Intel C2D E6300 @ 2.1ghz, I saw almost no increase in performance with NFS Carbon. That game is all videocard, and like we have all mentioned before, any x19** card will run that game spectacular, even if you had a 'slow' cpu.
January 26, 2007 2:15:23 AM

haaah, you are right!.. i put on blur along with the fraps, managed to sustain 15-20 fps . oh well, good thing i hate motion blur!
January 26, 2007 2:57:49 AM

Yup, I OC'ed my saphire x1950xt to 680/2000 on stock cooling. It doesnt even run that hot after some fan speed changes. I got it to run cooler than before the oc. Now its at 70 degrees load and the fan runs at 70% max. Great card.
January 26, 2007 3:55:44 AM

are you going pci-e or agp 8x? the banwidth on that asrock board is not pci-e 16x it is 4x which will considerably diminish the performance of any pci-e card that you install.
January 26, 2007 4:04:33 AM

Quote:
are you going pci-e or agp 8x? the banwidth on that asrock board is not pci-e 16x it is 4x which will considerably diminish the performance of any pci-e card that you install.


Thanks for pointing that out, but I know. I will be moving my new hardware into a new home soon enough, this asrock board is only a stepping stone, and is temporary.
January 26, 2007 4:07:43 AM

cool, congradulations on the new home.
January 26, 2007 4:15:09 AM

Quote:
cool, congradulations on the new home.


:)  Thanks.

EDIT: And it looks like I'll be getting the x1900xt and Antec Smartpower 2.0 500watt. I've weighed in my options, and although everyone speaks highly of the x1950xt, besides the fact it pushes me over budget, I just don't see it justifying 40$ extra, especially when I'm just trying to build an acceptable gaming machine until the end of this year, when I'll build new with DX10, Vista, and other new stuff that will be out :p . Again, one more thank you to everyone who helped me out
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2007 4:27:55 AM

Quote:

But It's fun to disable grass and see the difference in both IQ and fps. But playing with no grass...no thanks. :roll: (what was [H] thinking on that one?)


Well I understand their idea behind 'best playale', but that should't include removing grass, they need to keep within the spirit of the game! :roll:

Turn something else off/down instead like 4X AF or something. It would be like saying XGI gets early similar performance as my MRX700 from their VolariV8Duo, except I'm in 32bit and they're 256 colour, as if that's the same thing ! :lol: 

Actually occasionally I'll mess with grass on my card in order to find stuff. When I drop things, or combatants drop things in the grass sometimes it's hard to find, especially on a hillside. With grass turned off it's all revealed.
January 26, 2007 5:09:17 AM

Quote:

But It's fun to disable grass and see the difference in both IQ and fps. But playing with no grass...no thanks. :roll: (what was [H] thinking on that one?)


Well I understand their idea behind 'best playale', but that should't include removing grass, they need to keep within the spirit of the game! :roll:

Turn something else off/down instead like 4X AF or something. It would be like saying XGI gets early similar performance as my MRX700 from their VolariV8Duo, except I'm in 32bit and they're 256 colour, as if that's the same thing ! :lol: 

Actually occasionally I'll mess with grass on my card in order to find stuff. When I drop things, or combatants drop things in the grass sometimes it's hard to find, especially on a hillside. With grass turned off it's all revealed.

Ah yes, but then there are us who have to turn off grass (not for long though!) But I totally agree, when benchmarking, everything should be cranked, and cards should be compared at max image quality, none of this half-way BS.
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2007 5:47:31 AM

And I understand MYSELF turning specific things down in a LAN game because I want great accuracy, but don't need the immersiveness of other environmental crap, but for a review they need to figure out what makes the game impressive and then run based on that if they are looking for max playable, compromising quality for arbitrary targets just seems like a forced review.

BTW, you might not have to turn off grass, you can make it bigger, it helps alot, and doesn't look like you're exploring a countryside made of manicured putting greens like wen you turn it off. :mrgreen:
January 26, 2007 6:28:59 AM

Quote:
BTW, you might not have to turn off grass, you can make it bigger, it helps alot, and doesn't look like you're exploring a countryside made of manicured putting greens like wen you turn it off. :mrgreen:


Make it bigger? Even with all shadows off, grass off, HDR off, I still don't stay 30+fps at 1024x768 outdoors :/ 
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2007 10:01:47 AM

Quote:
Actually occasionally I'll mess with grass on my card in order to find stuff. When I drop things, or combatants drop things in the grass sometimes it's hard to find, especially on a hillside. With grass turned off it's all revealed.

It honestly took me a long time to even think about that. I can't tell ya how many times I chased a weapon down a grassy hillside following it by sound, only to never find it at the bottom. Then good ole TG suddenly clicked in my head. :roll:
January 26, 2007 7:37:21 PM

Quote:
While you are of course totally entitled to your opinion, stating that because you bought one single ATI card and had issues with it, and will never buy another makes you look like a noob not worth listening too. Many people may even assume it was user error like not having enough power or clearing out the old drivers. No offense intended, just stating how it looks.

Many of us have owned or have used numerous to countless numbers from both companies, and know that avoiding either brand totally is pretty foolish. They are pretty equal with their Windows (XP not vista ) :wink: drivers, game issues, and reliability.

And shoot, imagine if you were one of the hundreds of people in this thread who RMA's numerous GF7900's only to receive a bad card back again. Would you then give up on NV and stick to Intel or Matrox? Some of those guys had 5 bad GF7900 cards!


Well first, it was two bad ATI cards and second, I did my fair share of research. I posted my problem on many forums (asus, ati, saphire, tomshardware, silkyvenom, etc..) and what I saw were many people telling me that they had the same problem. And I definitly saw more problems with ATI than nvidia (excluding the 8800 series, those seem to be buggy). And when I called newegg to return my second x1950xt I asked the guy if he saw more nvidia or ATI cards comming back...he said ATI hands down. He answered so fast it caught me off guard.

Feel free to check out those forums, my sign in name is the same. Feel free to call retailers and ask them. And besides all this, people I have asked in real life tell me that they have had many compatibility problems with ATI and recommend using nvidia.

So I just suggested to this guy to use a nvidia card and save himself time, money and a headache. And if we all do it, we can send ATI a message: "fix your f'ing drivers!"
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2007 8:52:16 PM

I saw afterwards you were the one reporting a bad X1950XT here. I hadn't put the two post together.

Again, though without checking it in another system like I suggested, you can't be sure either was really a bad card as it could be a freak compatibility issue with your system. Either way, bottom line is they didn't work for you in your rig, so I understand your frustration.

Honestly, I don't believe the Newegg guy; he was probably a fanboi. The GF79xx's like I said were way buggier than the X1950's. Specific articles were written just on that. XFX forums were shut down all-together, and eVGA's were so jammed packed with complaints they started that Talley of bad cards thread as well as an evga employee starting a 7900 issue sticky. I am Not saying yours and many others you have read were not bad and you all have legitimate complaints, but just saying it's not nearly as bad as the GF7900 series fiasco. And I bet you 50% of RMA'd cards to Newegg are perfectly fine cards. User error, changed minds, etc.

Anyway, I don't blame your for staying away from ATI if you feel so strongly about it, but I do not feel NV is any better than ATI. To be honest I have purchased installed probably an equal amount from both companies and wouldn't be surprised if it were 100+ of each. I lost track long ago. But still, this is peanuts compared to what all the users on a Forum like this have used and we don't see things one sided when it comes to issues. So you have to understand, your 1-2 bad cards or possible good but incompatible cards won't erase, in my mind, my own experiences and pretty equal issue rate. All in all I bet I have had a few more NV RMA's than ATI, but close enough to call it even.
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2007 9:43:58 PM

If you get a chance, I'd like to see some of the links reguarding issues with the X1950XT. I googled it and keep finding issues that in the end had nothing to do with a bad card, but were user error or other bad hardware:

Here are two guys who left the rear slot blank plate on keeping the X1950XT fan from blowing hot air out of the case. :lol: 
http://www.sapphiretech.com/en/forums/showthread.php?t=...

This guys CPU died. Stinking Radeons fault I guess:
http://www.sapphiretech.com/en/forums/showthread.php?t=...

Another X1950XT issue thread that doesn't point to a problem card.
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=31&th...

Another issue thread that goes nowhere:
http://www.overclock.net/ati-drivers-overclocking-softw...

Anyway, that's just the first few when I googled X1950XT issues, and not one is a real issue with the card. Just to clarify, I do believe you, it's just I would like a link so I can give them a read. Most issues I have seen in the past were all related to not being able to use Cat 6.11's off ATI's website, or ATI tool not working which is just a matter of them not using the right version. A few too wimpy PSU complaints too I guess.
!