Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

X1950XT or 8600GTS

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 25, 2007 4:07:30 PM

I'm sorry if this question repeats other threads; I've looked around and couldn't see a definitive answer.
My choices:
Connect3D Radeon X1950XT (£147)
BFG 8600GTS OC 256MB (£141)

The X1950XT apparently runs better on DX9 games, but then the 8600 runs DX10 for the future.

I'm leaning towards the BFG card (Link) as it's overclocked already and looks like good value.

I have seen disapointing reviews of the 8600, so am not 100% convinced.

I'm looking at this for a gaming upgrade for Oblivion, NWN2, BF2142, etc (My Hardware Thread)

Any thoughts / advice?

More about : x1950xt 8600gts

April 25, 2007 4:14:25 PM

The 1950XT for sure. Although the GTS can run DX10 games, it'll probably be a pretty sad attempt at it. It can't even handle current games at high quality settings, much less future games.
April 25, 2007 4:40:44 PM

1950xt :) 
Related resources
April 25, 2007 5:06:59 PM

One more X1950XT vote here! 8)
April 25, 2007 5:14:48 PM

1950XT all the way.
April 25, 2007 5:40:37 PM

X1950XT hands down.
a c 147 U Graphics card
April 25, 2007 5:53:57 PM

The 8600gts can't even keep up with the x1950Pro let alone the XT. The XT just blows it clean out of the water. Unless you are looking for COMPLETE DX10 compatibility right now, which is not needed, get the dang ATI card. Nvidia has the high end of the market right now but ATI still has the mid range cards.

Just look through this article:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975
April 25, 2007 5:56:05 PM

Go with the 8600GTS














Psyche, X1950XT.
April 25, 2007 6:07:12 PM

X1950XT. :trophy:
April 25, 2007 6:39:33 PM

I have the X1950XT. It runs Neverwinter Nights 2 perfectly on my Viewsonic 22" Widescreen at 1680x1050 resolution with all of the eye-candy on.

DX10 games aren't even available and when they do get here later this year, in my humble opinion, only the high end cards will run them sufficiently well. Getting a DX10 game is about eye-candy and why bother running a DX10 game on low resolution because of an insufficient video card.

One question would be: Will it be better to run DX9 at high resolution or DX10 at low resolution? My guess would be to run DX9 at high resolution.

I agree with the majority. Get the X1950XT.
a b U Graphics card
April 25, 2007 7:11:01 PM

If it was only Oblvion then it'd be closer, but the X1950XT just walks alo over the GF8600 right now.
April 25, 2007 9:03:09 PM

Thank you everyone!

I wasn't expecting such a resounding vote for the ATI card. I'm guessing that if my budget stretched to a 8800, things may have been different, but as it is I'll be going for the X1950XT (and then look to upgrade to a 8800 in a year or so when they've come down to £50 :D  )

Thanks !
April 25, 2007 9:06:48 PM

i doubt they would come down to £50....at least not for another 5 years....but yeah you can hope :p 
a b U Graphics card
April 25, 2007 9:39:00 PM

Brand agnostic in these things. If you can swing a GF8800GTS-320 for only a small bit more, then definitely go that route.

Of those you found the X1950XT is the better deal.
And that's going to be the problem for the GF8600s until they can prove whether or not they can play DX10 titles with the effects turned on at reasonable framerates.
April 25, 2007 9:49:11 PM

Quote:
Thank you everyone!

I wasn't expecting such a resounding vote for the ATI card. I'm guessing that if my budget stretched to a 8800, things may have been different, but as it is I'll be going for the X1950XT (and then look to upgrade to a 8800 in a year or so when they've come down to £50 )

Thanks !


I'm glad you have decided to take the X1950XT over that weak DX10 card. By the time DX10 games really get going, the 8600 won't even meet the minimum requirements.
April 25, 2007 11:47:15 PM

x1950xt for the best bang for the buck or wait for ati's mid range to come out.
April 26, 2007 12:20:27 AM

Haha 'nough said
a b U Graphics card
April 26, 2007 12:48:23 AM

Quote:
If it was only Oblvion then it'd be closer, but the X1950XT just walks alo over the GF8600 right now.


Thats what i was gonna say.
April 26, 2007 1:35:57 AM

My vote goes to the 256MB x1950xt.
512MB would cost a bit more but why consider it if the 8800GTS is only 20 bucks more than it?
April 26, 2007 1:42:45 AM

Ditto what everybody else said.
April 26, 2007 1:43:21 AM

1950XT... cos i gots 1 :p 

Usually any NV card with x7xx or lower ends up being less that ideal for gaming. The x8xx and x9xx cards are obviously the good ones.

So even tough ur getting an 8 series dx10 card, it will be 'of the gay'

Using my NV multiplier trick...

Eg: 7900 vs 8600

7900 = 7x9= 63
8600 = 8x6= 48

7900 wins ;) 

Yah yah, i know its not SUPER accurate, the 8 series being so much better than the 7 has thrown it out a bit. But it can be helpful.

BTW... when will we see some THG benchies? AAAND what happened to the price/performance graphs?
April 26, 2007 2:03:04 AM

Absolutely no contest. X1950XT walks all over the 8600GTS.

DX10 support? Blah! Not much point if the card's not powerful enough to run any DX10 game.
April 26, 2007 3:21:29 AM

I find this thread interesting for a couple of reasons:

I'm shopping for a video card for a HTPC I will build. I am wondering what to choose of these:
1) Nvidia 7900 or 7950
2) ATI X1950XT

I would like the option of HD (High Definition) so that is why I'm looking at the higher range of video cards.

3) I would like the option of installing a Linux distro and virtually all distros are quite picky about the video cards that are used.

Of the video cards I listed above, are any of the cards workable in linux? Does anyone know? I will research but if anyone knows offhand, that would be great. I would just like the option and to make things a little easier if I have a linux distro on a partition. It's not essential but depending on how the video card works in video recording/encoding (etc.) and in linux, that could be a deciding factor if prices and performance are relatively close.
April 26, 2007 3:24:10 AM

Quote:
Absolutely no contest. X1950XT walks all over the 8600GTS.

DX10 support? Blah! Not much point if the card's not powerful enough to run any DX10 game.


8600 is such a big step down from an 8800 series card, if your in the price range, go w/ the 8800gts320mb. you won't have to upgrade for many years to come..

if you're not willing to spend that much on a card, then go w/ the 1950xt :trophy:
it will DOMINATE the 8600..

nvidia needs to have a medium card in between the 8600 and 8800, way too big of a step
April 26, 2007 3:26:23 AM

Quote:
My vote goes to the 256MB x1950xt.
512MB would cost a bit more but why consider it if the 8800GTS is only 20 bucks more than it?


exactly! not to mention the 8600 is predicted not to even handle dx10 all that well if at all playable... really with idda got the 1950xt stead of my 7900GT aghh different marketplace then...

I think hes got the point here.. So yeah, no many post hes prolly already bought it lol
a b U Graphics card
April 26, 2007 4:07:48 AM

Quote:
I find this thread interesting for a couple of reasons:


Because you like watching the caged animals don't you? Cheeky Monkey!

Quote:
I'm shopping for a video card for a HTPC I will build. I am wondering what to choose of these:
1) Nvidia 7900 or 7950
2) ATI X1950XT

I would like the option of HD (High Definition) so that is why I'm looking at the higher range of video cards.



Quick and simple answer, none of the above, wait for 1 of 2 things, either the GF8600GTS to come down in price (~$200 CAD is good IMO), or for the HD2600 series to come out and then compare the better of the two for around that price.

Those are the best options for people inclined to get HTPCs. Unless you absolutely have to buy now, wait for those to come out and come down in price, and they will be yourbest choices. They have better decoding and additional features compared to the previous generation's cards.

Quote:
3) I would like the option of installing a Linux distro and virtually all distros are quite picky about the video cards that are used.


Once again wait. For Linux, I'm not sure how the new HD2600s will fair, but right now nV is ahead in the Linux support, although AMD is working on it, the reality is still an nV advantage in may situations, but it does vary from case to case. These guys are the people to look to IMO;
http://www.phoronix.com/

Check out their R600 thread (still developing);
http://www.phoronix.com/?page=news_item&px=NTcyNA

Quote:
Of the video cards I listed above, are any of the cards workable in linux? Does anyone know?


Yes they all are, but check with the above folks for the latest support levels, and which versions support what best.

IMO wait for the GF8600s to come down in price and if the HD2600s get the linux nod check into those as well.
April 26, 2007 4:31:36 AM

Get the x1950 much better card no comparison 8)


i own a 8800 it will cream both of em :lol: 
April 26, 2007 8:54:39 AM

Thanks everyone - my mind is made up now - 8600GS.

:D  Just joking - the x1950XT it is.

I'd love to get the 512MB version (or a 8800), but they are too far out of my budget, so I'll go for the 256MB version and upgrade to a decent DX10 card in a year or so.

My new build is now pretty much sorted out - please let me know if you have any further comments... I'll be ordering this weekend...

My New Build

Thanks!
April 26, 2007 9:29:06 PM

Quote:
Thanks everyone - my mind is made up now - 8600GS.
Ugh... that would have been depressing.
April 26, 2007 11:19:43 PM

Quote:
Thanks everyone - my mind is made up now - 8600GS.
Ugh... that would have been depressing.

whoa whoa.. I hope that is a joke.. did he really get that one?
April 26, 2007 11:24:44 PM

No I didn't - I was joking! (see my post above). :) 

I'm now decided on the X1950XT and will be ordering this weekend - thank you all!
April 26, 2007 11:59:51 PM

8600GTS or 8600GT FTW for SFF. Low TDP too.

Seriously, Unless you have actually used an 8600 card, do not put it down as crap. I'm even surprised my card works as well as it does after reading all the reviews, threads and articles bad-mouthing it.

Even the 8600GT I got beat out my 7900GS.

For $260 after rebate you can get a 8800GTS by EVGA and thats where its at.
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2007 12:57:46 AM

Quote:
8600GTS or 8600GT FTW for SFF. Low TDP too.


The GF8600s can't be considered low power, they consume as much or more than the GF7900GS under both 2D and 3D.

It's getting good performace for it powers consumption compared to the GF7900GS, but compare a GF7600GT to the GF8600GT, and the GF7600GT does better per watt, so that can't be considered a strongpoint of the GF8600s, except when comparing to the higher end cards that ramp up their power consumption/heat.
April 27, 2007 1:18:06 AM

okay, well, i guess 43 watts doesn't cut it for you (8600GT)

:D 

Not sure where you get the fact that 7600GT has more performance per watt, but I owned a 7600GT before my 7900GS and this 8600GT (XFX xxx edition 625mhz stock oc @ 710 ) beats both hands down

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pH08v9qyMLzc82aU...
compared to all those, id say that it wins watt/performance

Although if that table is correct the 8600GTS sucks in terms of power consumption, although they list it as the G80 core, which is not correct lol.
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2007 1:49:01 AM

Quote:
okay, well, i guess 43 watts doesn't cut it for you (8600GT)

:D 

Not sure where you get the fact that 7600GT has more performance per watt, but I owned a 7600GT before my 7900GS and this 8600GT (XFX xxx edition 625mhz stock oc @ 710 ) beats both hands down

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pH08v9qyMLzc82aU...
compared to all those, id say that it wins watt/performance

Although if that table is correct the 8600GTS sucks in terms of power consumption, although they list it as the G80 core, which is not correct lol.


it may spoof up after newer drivers are released.
April 27, 2007 2:29:40 AM

i dont know but i just saw the x1950xt for 199 and a mail in rabate of 20=179$ on newegg!
April 27, 2007 2:29:53 AM

one more vote for the X1950 XT (a little late tho, lol). OP hope you enjoy it as much as i enjoy mine. 8)
a b U Graphics card
April 27, 2007 2:49:42 AM

Quote:
okay, well, i guess 43 watts doesn't cut it for you (8600GT)


Not when the GF7900GS pulls 45W and performs better;
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce8...

The GTS is more power consuming at 47W.

Quote:
Not sure where you get the fact that 7600GT has more performance per watt, but I owned a 7600GT before my 7900GS and this 8600GT (XFX xxx edition 625mhz stock oc @ 710 ) beats both hands down


Run the numbers, then divide by your 43W and then the GF7600GT's 36Watts, and tell me where the fps/W winner is.

Quote:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pH08v9qyMLzc82aU...
compared to all those, id say that it wins watt/performance


I'd say Excel sheets posted on google get trumped by actual benchmarks. :roll:

Quote:
Although if that table is correct the 8600GTS sucks in terms of power consumption, although they list it as the G80 core, which is not correct lol.


Like I said about excel sheets on google. :mrgreen:
!