Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Updating my gfx card, stuck between decision.

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 25, 2007 8:52:12 PM

I want to upate my gfx card, and I have picked two out. Not sure which to go with though, but I like the price of both. I currently have a 9800xt 256mb card, and I remember when I first installed it, the PSU requirements were barely met. So a new card would have to equal to or less the amount of PSU that the 9800xt requires.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Any feedback is appreciated, or if you have any suggestions for other cards in the same price range. Please reply ATI/Nvidia fanboyism aside. :) 

September 25, 2007 9:23:52 PM

Can't really help you properly without a PSU model or spec.
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 25, 2007 9:25:54 PM

Well that's not really the best way to do it IE comparing power requirement of one card to another and then that ran so that should but then i did it a couple of days ago so that's a lot hypocritical of me :lol: 
Usually we ask the poster to supply there psu rating but look at these card comparisons DONT take them as gospel the numbers are completely different but the cards do compare similarly.
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000662.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/08/21/energy-efficient...
http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp?s=2&c=7&t=9354
The last one will be of most use to you and you will see that using this comparson way of doing things then the 7900 would be fine but a 1950 pro probably wouldnt run.
Mactronix :) 
Related resources
September 25, 2007 9:40:08 PM

Hm, anyway to check what my PSU is without opening the case?
September 25, 2007 9:59:57 PM

How about the retail box, and if that don't give the info you need then you must open the case.
September 25, 2007 11:39:06 PM

Alright, I opened the case, it's a 420w.
September 26, 2007 12:09:18 AM

A 7900GS should have a lower power draw. The PCI-E version uses only around 45W-50W load, so the AGP should use similar, possibly a bit more for the PCI-E -> AGP bridge chip. But even then your PSU should be plenty for one.
September 26, 2007 5:19:04 AM

So, any suggestions on which card to get based off performance, or any other cards - based on that I have a 420w psu, and AGP.
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2007 6:28:05 AM

I suggest the 7900gs, simply because the geforce cards in general have stronger performance. the rebate is cool, too. I like XFX, they make great video cards.

Also at new egg they have 7800 almost as good for about 30 less. Personally, I think you'll be happy with the 7900
September 26, 2007 6:32:19 AM

Is there any difference between the cards in that one has 512 ram(x1950), and the one with 256 ram(7900gs)?
September 26, 2007 7:11:30 AM

Polluxo said:
Is there any difference between the cards in that one has 512 ram(x1950), and the one with 256 ram(7900gs)?


Yes and no. It'll depend on which game your playing, some of the newer games disable graphic options for players with under 512MB of Vram. WIC is one of those games where anything lower than 640MB on card Vram will limit your options. I expect future games to follow suite. This is only one of many that will limit your options.>>http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/459/
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2007 7:13:16 AM

Some difference at high resolutions, especially with a large monitor. I've heard that the difference between gddr2 and gddr3 ram is more significant than the difference between 256 and 512. If that helps at all.
It will prolly come down to personal preference tho. Do you like intel or amd? Mc D's or Burger King?
Right now Intel is winning the proc wars and geforce is winning the graphics. I'd say these two cards performance wise will be pretty close. So pick the one you feel most confident with and is a reliable company you trust.
September 26, 2007 9:53:56 AM

buzznut said:
I suggest the 7900gs, simply because the geforce cards in general have stronger performance.


This is total crap.

To compare the cards, check out this link. You'll find that the X1950PRO is faster overall, but not hugely:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx...


a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2007 11:21:47 AM

OK, two things. You cant depend on just a watt reading for your psu, it really comes down to Amps on the 12 volt rail, preferably 26 or more. Secondly, the 1950 pro is a better card, tho it does draw more power
September 26, 2007 4:41:17 PM

buzznut said:
I suggest the 7900gs, simply because the geforce cards in general have stronger performance.


Please don't make statements like that if you don't know what you're talking about.

The X1950 PRO is generally faster than the 7900 GS.
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2007 6:25:59 PM

Quote:
buzznut wrote :

I suggest the 7900gs, simply because the geforce cards in general have stronger performance.



Please don't make statements like that if you don't know what you're talking about.

The X1950 PRO is generally faster than the 7900 GS


First of all, I do know what I'm talking about. I've been building computer systems for over 15 years, cleeve. Before that I was a radar technician, so I know a thing or two about hardware. Maybe you should be more concerned about what YOU don't know. Like my expertise level, for one.

If the x1950 pro is "generally" faster, then what is your criteria? Do you mean all games or certain benchmarks? What is your proof that I don't know what I'm talking about?

I was simply making a general statement about the geforce performance vs ati. And geforce cards "in general" have better performance than ati right now. The general statement that geforce cards perform better than ati cards at this time, I think most experts would agree that is the case. Would you rather have an 8800 gtx or a 2900xt? It wasn't always this way, and I'm sure ati will be on top again soon enough.
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2007 6:47:28 PM

"This is total crap.

To compare the cards, check out this link. You'll find that the X1950PRO is faster overall, but not hugely:"

Actually if you use that link to see the total frames per second of ALL games (not just Might and Magic), you'll see that the performance between these two cards is VERY similar.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx...

Which is exactly what I said in the message directly above yours, ethel.

Having said that you make a good point that the x1950 pro is "slightly" faster, according to those charts on toms hardware. But that is only one piece of evidence..

However, I do know for a fact that the 7900 series are great overclockers, which would affect my personal buying decision; I would still buy the 7900 for myself. That chart does not take overclocking performance into account.
Thus, I think you can see my opinion is not "total crap"

I realize I am new on these forums, but that does not mean I have an uninformed opinion.
September 26, 2007 7:15:37 PM

buzznut said:

First of all, I do know what I'm talking about.


No, you don't, because the X1950 PRO is faster than the 7900 GS in most games... and you suggested the opposite is true.

You might be a radar technician, that's impressive & all... but I test videocards for a living.
You see, I review graphics cards for Tom's Hardware.

I maintain that my experience may be a little more relevant than your own in this field. :D 
September 26, 2007 7:47:54 PM

I've owned the XFX 7950GT and had it overclocked to 630 core / 1600 Mhz memory. I've also owned 3 different X1950 Pro's. I found the Sapphire X1950 Pro to be the best of the group. Would I take it over a 7900GS? You bet.

Some other's have also brought up your power supply for good reason. Power supply requirements for the 7900GS is much lower than the Pro. Only 400w and 20a on the +12v rail for the 7950GT, and I'm sure the 7900GS would be similar. Where as the X1950 Pro recommended power supply is 30a on the +12v rail. So, you definitely need to factor this into your decision. If your current power supply isn't up to it, then I would go with the 7900GS.
September 26, 2007 7:49:54 PM

3 x1950 pro's? wtf?
September 26, 2007 7:57:36 PM

buzznut said:
Quote:
buzznut wrote :
I was simply making a general statement about the geforce performance vs ati. And geforce cards "in general" have better performance than ati right now. The general statement that geforce cards perform better than ati cards at this time, I think most experts would agree that is the case. Would you rather have an 8800 gtx or a 2900xt? It wasn't always this way, and I'm sure ati will be on top again soon enough.
Quote:


Who cares who has the faster top model chip? he was asking about mid level. That is like saying Intel has faster chips than AMD and so you should buy a P4 over a n AMD of the same generation.

Also, since you don't know much about your PSU, I'm assuming you don't want to overclock. But, if you do, you may want the 7900 because it is supposed to overclock better. If not, I would go with the 1950 as it is slightly faster.
September 26, 2007 8:01:51 PM

spuddyt said:
3 x1950 pro's? wtf?


4 if you count the two bad HIS cards. I went a little nutz this year. Started with a Visiontek 256MB Card which was the first Pro to street in the US. Returned in favor of the Sapphire X1950 Pro 512MB card, EBayed it and made $50 and bought the HIS ICEQ3 Turbo 512MB for that super cooler. God punished me for my excess and gave me 2 bad cards. Turns out Revision 1 core couldn't hold up to the 620 mhz. HIS default overclock. They later made a Rev. 2 card with different Core/Memory clocks, but by that time I was trying out the Gecube X1950XT and XFX 7950GT. Finally gave in and built my first PCI-E rig about a month ago. Overall, I didn't lose more than $100 swapping cards and had a lot of fun in the process.
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2007 8:23:04 PM

geforce didn't retake the overall crown until the 8800/HD2900 generation, which has no bearing on the 7900/X1900 generation. Only thing worthwhile is to try to find benchmarks for the game you want to play. If there are none, then it's really a crapshoot, and in any case, if published benches are less than 10% or so apart, as the 7900gs and the X1950pro appear to be, it's probably imperceptible anyways.

It will come down to price, whether you want to ever go SLI or crossfire, and personal preference. Oh, and I suppose cooling, and maybe in some cases how many slots does it take up.

My question is whether your 420W PSU is any good or not. If it's OEM with a case or from a computer manufacturer (i.e. Dell, Gateway, HP, etc) it's likely to be a candidate for a replacement when you upgrade the video card as it probably doesn't supply much more power than what the original system needs.
September 26, 2007 8:30:30 PM

buzznut said:

Actually if you use that link to see the total frames per second of ALL games (not just Might and Magic), you'll see that the performance between these two cards is VERY similar.


Total frames doesn't mean all that much because it includes data from non-playable resolutions.

Let's look real world playable resolutions:

Oblivion 1280x1024, HDR:
X1950 PRO: 22.5 FPS
7900 GS: 13.2 FPS
Winner: X1950 PRO


Prey 1600x1200
X1950 PRO: 30.2 FPS
7900 GS: 28.8 FPS
Winner: TIE


Doom3 1600x1200
X1950 PRO: 50.3 FPS
7900 GS: 49.6 FPS
Winner: TIE


Warhammer mark of chaos 1600x1200, 4xAA, 8xAF
X1950 PRO: 24.5 FPS
7900 GS: 19.5 FPS
Winner: X1950 PRO


Dark Messiah of Might & Magic 1280x1024, 4xAA, 8xAF
X1950 PRO: 37.1 FPS
7900 GS: 24.2 FPS
Winner: X1950 PRO


Flight Simulator X 1280x1024, 4xAA, 8xAF
X1950 PRO: 16.7 FPS
7900 GS: 22.6 FPS
Winner: 7900 GS


Battlefield 2142 1280x1024, 4xAA, 8xAF
X1950 PRO: 35.9 FPS
7900 GS: 27.7 FPS
Winner: X1950 PRO




Totals:

7900 GS: 1
(only Flight Simulator X - not a real popular title in the benchmark suite, but we'll include it for argument's sake)

TIES: 2
(both Doom3 engine games - and in both the X1950 PRO has a very slight advantage for the record)

X1950 PRO: 4
(by large margins)

There's a pretty obvious advantage to the X1950 PRO at playable resolutions, once you leave out erroneous data like who gets 10 and 5 fps at such high resolutiosn that it's unplayable, or who gets 120 fps vs 100 fps at low resolutions where both cards perform well.

At the max playable resolutions - where performance differences matter - the X1950 PRO has an obvious advantage. Yes, the 7900 GS is more overclockable, but how much overclocking effort does it take to simply cover the original performance spread?


Trying to cover up your incorrect statement by deflecting attention to the 8800 (is a Ford Pinto better than an Acura NSX because Ford makes the GT?) isn't going to cover your mistake. The mature thing to do once you've done a bit more research (which you obviously did after your original statement) would have been to admit you were a bit off base in your comment instead of trying to defend your awkwardly inaccurate original position on the matter... and pointing out your impressive (but irrelevant) radar technician experience.
September 26, 2007 8:34:19 PM

I just realized the point of this thread is moot since we still don't know what brand psu or how many amps it is.
420w what?
My old 305w has 22amps.
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2007 9:09:13 PM

buzznut said:
Quote:
buzznut wrote :

I was simply making a general statement about the geforce performance vs ati. And geforce cards "in general" have better performance than ati right now. The general statement that geforce cards perform better than ati cards at this time, I think most experts would agree that is the case. Would you rather have an 8800 gtx or a 2900xt? It wasn't always this way, and I'm sure ati will be on top again soon enough.
Quote:

Sorry to say, but there's so much wrong with that comment it's rediculous. You can't make a blanket statement like that. The best card for an individual at bare minimum depends on the budget, the games he/she plays, and resolution/eye candy desired. Even if NVidia has the best over gaming card in the 8800 Ultra, that doesn't doesn't change the fact 999 out of 1000 people buying cards wouldn't spend that kind of money on a card. And if you want to make a blanket statement about a series, in general, the ATI X19xx series cards > the GF7900 series cards in performance, image quality and features. For quite a while now the X1950 pro and X1950XT have typically owned their price brackets. But that still doesn't mean they win all games or are better for everyone.

The OP has a power supply limits and when you factor in power consumption, the GF79 series uses less power than the X19xx series, so the 7900GS, 7600GT, and 7600GS gain value for people without the 12v rail needed for the X1650's and X1950's.

But in AGP, the fastest gaming card made is the X1950XT, followed by the 7950GT, X1950 pro, and 7900GS so your blanket statement again would not apply.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
a b U Graphics card
September 26, 2007 10:59:11 PM

"Sorry to say, but there's so much wrong with that comment it's rediculous. "

You are the first one in this thread to actually make some sense. (In regards to PS limits and Value) Except for saying my comment has so many things wrong with it. I stated my opinion in a forum, there's nothing wrong with that. You might not agree with my opinion, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

It also doesn't mean I make ridiculous statements, or that my comments are total crap.

What is happening is- this is not an open forum. If it was, I wouldn't be subject to name calling for expressing an opinion.

And I still stand by my choice of the 7900gs. With the overclocking options, the XFX brand, and the $30 less price tag, for me it is the better deal.

You are right, performance per dollar is as important a criteria in choosing a card as anything else. In fact, as far as I'm concerned it is the most important factor. I am a college student and have no money, I just bought a 7600 gt for 80$ because that level of performance for that low price is an outstanding deal. I also get to step up in a couple of months to a 8800gts, granted I will pay retail but still a good deal.

So, I guess the question is: Does the x1900xt have $32.99 worth of increased performance, even after overclocking? This is approximately a 15% difference in price, after rebate.

BTW, weren't the current charts we referenced earlier for PCI express versions of the those 2 cards? Correct me if I'm wrong...

cleeve, since your the expert here, do you believe the agp versions of these cards have the same exact performance as the pci express versions?
If not, why would you use that data for comparison?

And thanks for the data on playable frame rates vs overall. Statistically speaking, the very high resolution data might be possible outlier information and may skew the data in way that is not representative of true performance. Good call.
September 27, 2007 1:31:29 AM

Appreciate the replies, I figured out I have a Chieftec ATX 12v hpc 420-102, but that is all I know of it.
September 27, 2007 1:46:14 AM

Polluxo said:
Appreciate the replies, I figured out I have a Chieftec ATX 12v hpc 420-102, but that is all I know of it.

Doesn't look to good, your model isn't listed but the 2 that are close are 17 and 18amps.

Chieftec GPS-350EB-101A NG
Chieftec GPS-400AA-101A NG
Chieftec GPS-450AA-101A NG
Chieftec HPC-360-202DF 17amps
Chieftec HPC-420-302DF 18amps
Chieftec GPS-500AB A 30amps
Chieftec GPS-550AB A 30amps
Chieftec CFT-500W 27amps
Chieftec CFT-550W 30amps
Chieftec CFT-560A-12-C 36amps
Chieftec CFT-370-P12S 21amps
Chieftec CFT-430-P12S 25amps
Chieftec CFT-460-P12S 31amps
Chieftec CFT-500A-12S 31amps
Chieftec CFT-560A-12S 36amps
Chieftec CFT-620A-12S 41amps

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=205763
a b U Graphics card
September 27, 2007 11:19:00 AM

buzznut said:

I stated my opinion in a forum, there's nothing wrong with that. You might not agree with my opinion, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

It also doesn't mean I make ridiculous statements, or that my comments are total crap.

What is happening is- this is not an open forum. If it was, I wouldn't be subject to name calling for expressing an opinion.

And I still stand by my choice of the 7900gs. With the overclocking options, the XFX brand, and the $30 less price tag, for me it is the better deal.

You are not being jumped on for an opinion. I only commented because because of your reasoning behind a recomendation; you recommended a 7900GS because Geforces generally perform better. I am only pointing out what is so wrong with that line of thinking and using it to make a recomendation. Had you just recommended the 7900GS or said it's because of current AR price and low power consumption, all would be fine. Look at what I quoted and it's your explantion of recomendation not your recomendation itself.

Let me put it to you this way, should I tell people I recommend the mustang over a corvette because generally Ford's are faster than Chevy's? I mean afterall the exotic Ford GT edges out even the mighty Z06 so a plain jane Mustang GT must be the best car to recommend, right? That might be a poor example that could get picked apart(just go with it for a minute), but my point is you recomend the card because it's the best for that person not because Geforces are better than Radeons. A mustang could meet a certain persons needs and offer exactly what performance and fun factor they want for their budget, but it being the best for that person has nothing to do with how other models perfom compared to each other. In reality the corvette performs better, yet if the person wants the option to put a couple kids in the back it's a bad choice. Does any of that make sense? There's nothing wrong with recomending the mustang or the 7900GS, but don't do it because generally Geforces (or Fords) perform better (which is not true anyway).

As it turns out, I would not even try a 7900GS with a generic 420W power supply with 17 amps on the 12v rail. 7600GT, sure. BUT, I agree with you the 7900GS could have been a great option for this guy based on knowing his power supply was on the weak side. I just don't agree with your reasoning/explanation why you recommended it. And when power consumption is not a concern, then generally as Cleeve stated the X1950 pro beats the 7900GS (wins and sometimes shines much better in more situations than it loses in Windows gaming). Considering the OP's options, I say if he wants a 7900GS/X1950 pro class card he should get a new PSU. And my own recomendation (if he buys at least a 450W PSU with 30A on the 12 volt rails) for $150 in AGP would be the X1950 pro. I think more often than not it will give the better performance, IQ, and features compared to the 7900GS, especially for non overclokers.

a b U Graphics card
September 27, 2007 12:12:51 PM

Also, what it comes down to is that ocing your card brings the heat and the power up, so alot of those advantages swing back to even. Outta the box, no ocing, the pro is the better card, as the 1900 series was slightly better than the 7900 series, but both are great cards/series. To the OP, you can get by with 26 amps combined on the 12 volt rail with a pro IF you have a reputible psu. I ran and run my 1900xt 512mb with a 420 watt psu, thos its rated at 29 amps. Its an enermax, good brand
September 27, 2007 12:56:57 PM

buzznut said:
"This is total crap.

To compare the cards, check out this link. You'll find that the X1950PRO is faster overall, but not hugely:"

Actually if you use that link to see the total frames per second of ALL games (not just Might and Magic), you'll see that the performance between these two cards is VERY similar.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx...

Which is exactly what I said in the message directly above yours, ethel.

Having said that you make a good point that the x1950 pro is "slightly" faster, according to those charts on toms hardware. But that is only one piece of evidence..

However, I do know for a fact that the 7900 series are great overclockers, which would affect my personal buying decision; I would still buy the 7900 for myself. That chart does not take overclocking performance into account.
Thus, I think you can see my opinion is not "total crap"

I realize I am new on these forums, but that does not mean I have an uninformed opinion.


Don't fudge the issue by bringing in other information. I was replying directly to this statement made by you, which I quoted:

'I suggest the 7900gs, simply because the geforce cards in general have stronger performance.'

This is total crap in two ways:

1) Geforce cards do not 'in general have stronger performance', and in this case the ATI card is faster
2) To use this as a reason to recommend one specific card over another is ridiculous

You clearly do have more knowledge than this, so use it with discretion to give advice.
September 27, 2007 3:25:37 PM

buzznut said:
What is happening is- this is not an open forum. If it was, I wouldn't be subject to name calling for expressing an opinion.


This is an open forum, but that doesn't mean we won't point it out when we think someone is off base. You did imply that the 7900 GS is faster than the X1950 PRO, and that's simply not true.

I apologize if you've taken it personally. We value the evidence and truth here, so we strive to clear things up if we can. If you found it a bit abrasive I apologize.



buzznut said:
So, I guess the question is: Does the x1900xt have $32.99 worth of increased performance, even after overclocking? This is approximately a 15% difference in price, after rebate.


I thought we were talking about the PRO... the XT will absolutely destroy the 7900 GS in every benchmark known to man. At 1600x1200 I wouldn't be surprised if the X1950 XT gets 25% or more performance of the 7900 GS - maybe up to 50% more with hhigh levels of AA and AF. That's sure worth he extra 15%.

Remember that the X1950 PRO and XT are different GPUs. The PRO has 32 pixel shaders and performs a bit better than the 7900 GS.
The XT has 48 pixel shaders and slays them both!



buzznut said:
cleeve, since your the expert here, do you believe the agp versions of these cards have the same exact performance as the pci express versions?
If not, why would you use that data for comparison?


Yes I do believe that AGP and PCIe have essentially identical performance - I tested it myself.
The performance bottleneck is not the bus bandwidth, it's the GPU and memory:

Here's the test: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/01/agp-platform-ana...


buzznut said:
And thanks for the data on playable frame rates vs overall. Statistically speaking, the very high resolution data might be possible outlier information and may skew the data in way that is not representative of true performance. Good call.


No problem. Sometimes it helps to concentrate on the real-world numbers. Summarizing a large field of data into a single number often produces a watered down version of reality.
a b U Graphics card
September 28, 2007 3:25:42 AM

ok,
these are all good replies. It does help me see that if I'm going to make a recommendation, you guys are gonna want justification. I don't think insulting my intelligence (or knowledge) is the way to go about it but...
well, enough about that.
It was kind of an off the cuff remark, a quick reply without explaining why I would recommend that card. But do you really believe that nvidia has not been the dominant player in this field the last two years? (I'm really gonna get it now!) They have had the dominant top end card for awhile, maybe a year now? They have been first to market with new technologies, first with dx10 support. No, not every time with every card, silly. In the trade publications and internet sites, the general consensus seems to be that ati has been playing catch up for two years. Which is unfortunate, I LIKE ati! I have a 9600 pro in my current rig that has served me well for 3 years, I am only now thinking of upgrading.
But do we really believe that nvidia technologies (people are gonna eat this up and spit it out) have been dominant (see?) because those developers are a swell bunch of guys and we should all give them our money? Again these are not my biased opinions but based on articles written by various experts in the field such as CPU magazine (heh, just pulled one out at random, CPU Magazine March 2006 pg 18), Maximum PC, anandtech.com, etc.

Perhaps someone could imply (or did imply) that I said the 7900 is faster, but I did not state that.

Thanks, again, for the AGP data cleeve. Very helpful, that. That's interesting that it is almost identical performance compared to the pci-e versions. So there is definitely a performance delta, esp at the higher resolutions in comparison to the 7800. I didn't read the whole article, did the cards being tested all have the same amount of vram? just curious.

My bad, I mentioned the wrong model so it must have sounded a bit foolish. doh <sheepish grin>

So, I will step off my soap box as I have wasted too much time ( mine and yours) defending an opinion which is just that, an opinion. Opinions are not really right or wrong, just one point of view or perspective.

So if certain folks want to believe they know everything, and that I'm a complete idiot that's their prerogative. I think it is unfortunate, I believe I have a lot of cool knowledge and great experience to pass on to others. Such as how a transformer in a power supply works, or why you shouldn't touch that capacitor on your motherboard, even though you just turned your machine off. Probably bad examples, this may be common knowledge or useless info for some.
September 28, 2007 1:38:43 PM

cleeve said:
This is an open forum, but that doesn't mean we won't point it out when we think someone is off base. You did imply that the 7900 GS is faster than the X1950 PRO, and that's simply not true.


<soap box>
I agree with this point. This is an open forum. But I am glad opinions and even "facts" are challenged.

I am a total n00b, and relied mostly on this site for guidance for my 1st build. I, like others, will spend serious $$$ based on recommendations. Sometimes folks will save for months, and if recommendations are done "off the cuff" you could be helping someone make a costly mistake.

Having said that, after my 1st build, I feel totally comfortable sharing my opinions, and provide facts, to give back to this community. When I am wrong, and sometimes when I am right, I will be corrected. From this I am learning more and more. Sure some replies are a bit strong, but hey, what the hell, no different than the old, "Mopar rules! No it sucks." Take it with a grain of salt ;-)

</soap box>
buzznut, welcome to the forum
September 28, 2007 2:50:53 PM

buzznut said:

It was kind of an off the cuff remark, a quick reply without explaining why I would recommend that card. But do you really believe that nvidia has not been the dominant player in this field the last two years? (I'm really gonna get it now!)


We're not partisan here, we're just making a call on the X1950 PRO vs. 7900 GS.

I don't think there's a man (or woman) on this board who knows what they're talking about that would argue Nvidia hasn't dominated the graphics industry since the introduction of the 8800.

...although your timeline might be a bit off. Has the 8800 been around for 2 years? In the X1900 XTX vs. 7900 GTX generation, I think the X1900 was the performance winner.


buzznut said:
Perhaps someone could imply (or did imply) that I said the 7900 is faster, but I did not state that.


Well, I don't think it's much of a leap. You did say:

"I suggest the 7900gs, simply because the geforce cards in general have stronger performance. "

I don't see how a person COULDN'T conclude that you're implying the 7900 is faster, based on context.

For example, I drop in on a car enthusiast forum, and some guy asks which car was faster - corvette or mustang.
I say " I suggest the Mustang, simply because Fords in general are faster cars".
I think there's a pretty heavy implication there, in context, that the Mustang is faster.

Now the Ford GT is a much faster car than the Corvette, but that's not really relevant to what the original poster is asking - he's made it clear that he's choosing between the Mustang and Corvette. When I answer to choose the Mustang because Fords are faster, I'm making a very clear implication that the mustang is faster.

Otherwise, why make that recommendation?

If you're not implying the 7900 GS is faster, then what were you implying? That the person should choose the slower 7900 GS because the 8800 is faster? What else could you mean by ""I suggest the 7900gs, simply because the geforce cards in general have stronger performance."

I mean at this point it's moot, but you seem confused why we were on you for this remark so I'm trying to explain our reaction. I think to most people it's a very obvious implication, and while it's not strictly saying the 7900 GS is faster, I think most people will get that out of it. I know I did. Alot of other people here did, too.

I guess the moral of the story is we all have to watch our communication skills and be wary of clearing things up if they get misunderstood. I know my stuff is often understood differently from my intended message as well.
a b U Graphics card
September 28, 2007 4:43:15 PM

"I guess the moral of the story is we all have to watch our communication skills and be wary of clearing things up if they get misunderstood. I know my stuff is often understood differently from my intended message as well."

Thanks, cleeve. This statement is probably the most significant thing in this thread.

Well, other than addressing the issue at hand, of coarse! haha

Another thought, I did try to clear up what I was saying about my choice for the 7900 gs, which resulted in more slander about my lack of knowledge and my general stupidity. Oh, and dishonesty, since now I am "covering up my mistake". <What a crock of $#!*> I guess if you don't agree with an opinion and feel threatened by it, its ok to go ahead assasinate the person's character.

As it turns out, the 7900 might be the better choice for Polluxo, due to power requirements of -was it 19 amps on the 12V rail for the x1950? However, in the case of a 420 watt PS, I seriously doubt I would be doing a lot of overclocking with anything, much less my 7900 gs. So, probably the best suggestion for Polluxo would be: if he wants to stay current, he ought to start saving for a new system or his choices will be rather limited. In other words, what is the logic of spending $180 on an upgrade for an old system that will need to be replaced soon anyway? (Again, if he desires to keep up with current software) He could spend $500 and build one just like the low end system here on Toms hardware.

Thank you very much, speedy! You are the first to welcome me, I am honored. Its nice to know a dissenting opinion will not label me as a clueless renegade with everyone.

wait, I actually like the renegade part...

As I have suggested elsewhere, I guess if certain individuals removed the large stick from their behinds (I'm sure you know what I'm talking about cleeve, arguing semantics, petty nit picking just to be argumentative, etc.) this might be a more pleasant experience for everyone. It is just one foolish renegade's opinion.

Having said that I am all for the scientific method and backing up opinions with indisputable fact. I also believe in accountability, and clarifying one's position. That's all good stuff right there.
September 28, 2007 6:11:24 PM

Well, I have had my fair share of sticks up my behind, and I'll include this thread as an example of that. We can all get our backs up now and again.

The problem with a forum is that people will assume a hostile intention where we don't have the benefit of hearing the inflection of each other's voices, and hostility can escalate quickly.

Having said that, I don't think there's a single upstanding member of this forum (or any web forum, for that matter) who hasn't had a bit of a hostile start at the beginning when they're making their thoughts known. God knows I had my share of uphill battles here. (Where did GeneticWeapon and Willamettesucks go, anyway?)

I'll happily be the second one to welcome you to the forum. :D 
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 28, 2007 6:45:16 PM

To buzznut
Just read the whole thread as you say none of us are perfect and some of the people on here are quick to take offence i sometimes sit for about 5 mins thinking how to word things so as not to put peoples backs up.
Any way i would just like to also welcome you to the forum and look forward to benefiting from what you have to contribute and hopefully vice versa :) 
!