Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which is better? Radeon X1650 PRO AGP or GeForce 7800 GS

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 22, 2007 5:23:31 PM

I have done some research on graphics cards and have found these 2 which look like a good fit. Which do you think would be better? Radeon X1650 PRO AGP or GeForce 7800 GS?

And I'm pretty sure they are compatible with my computer but I want to make sure.

I have:

DELL Dimension 4600
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
2.25 GB RAM

Thanks!
November 22, 2007 5:41:53 PM

7800 GS > X1650 PRO

The 7800 GS, X1650 XT, and 7600 GT are roughly equivalent.

There is also a 2600 XT available for AGP, $112 on Newegg the last time I checked, and a bit faster than the 7800 GS.
November 24, 2007 8:44:36 PM

Well, I need an AGP card and that 7600 GT says it's an PCI Express. The 2600 XT says it's for laptops but I'm looking for one for a desktop.

So, out of the ones you suggested, and the ones I suggested, which one is the best that works with AGP?
Related resources
November 24, 2007 9:06:34 PM

the X1950 pro or even the XT are the best cards you can get. i'm personally planning on getting an XFX geforce 7600GT because it's cheaper.
November 24, 2007 9:22:47 PM

the 7800gs is better, but you should look at getting a 1950pro instead.
November 24, 2007 10:56:26 PM

Are all of these suggestions AGP? I'm loking at their webpages and some arn't AGP.
November 24, 2007 10:59:19 PM

Also, the card needs to have a VGA output and compatible with a 480 Watt power supply. (I don't know how much my computer uses out of that so I don't know how much is left for the card.)
November 24, 2007 11:35:25 PM

SAPPHIRE 100219L Radeon HD 2600XT 256MB 128-bit GDDR3 AGP 8X HDCP Ready Video Card - Retail

480 watts should be plenty. The hd 2600xt is new and die shrunk (65nm) so while it is as fast as the older 7800gt it uses less power. In fact my hd2600xt-PCIe does not even have an extra power connector, it gets all the power it needs from the mother board pcie slot. I'm not sure if the AGP version does this, checking......

OK the Sapphire 2600xt AGP does need extra power from a 6 pin connector but it includes an adapter to draw that power from the standard 4 pin PS connector. Anyhow this card is not a power hog and it is the best AGP card you can get for the money.

November 24, 2007 11:47:17 PM

Don't take my word for it, Cleeve suggested it as well.....

cleeve said:
....There is also a 2600 XT available for AGP, $112 on Newegg the last time I checked, and a bit faster than the 7800 GS.

November 24, 2007 11:57:16 PM

itotallybelieveyou said:
7800GS is better
Better than what? Did you read anything except the original question?

BTW the hd 2600 xt comes with a DVI to VGA adapter so it looks like it can run dual VGA monitors, one directly and one using the adapter.
November 24, 2007 11:57:42 PM

Myhousemf said:
Also, the card needs to have a VGA output and compatible with a 480 Watt power supply. (I don't know how much my computer uses out of that so I don't know how much is left for the card.)


yes, they make AGP versions. Look at www.newegg.com they usually have them in stock.
November 25, 2007 12:32:51 AM

Also, does this need to be the same type of memory as the rest of my computer? I'm thinking not since it is on the card itself but I don't know.

It says: 128-bit DDR2/GDDR3/GDDR4 memory interface

My computer uses DDR I think.
November 25, 2007 12:42:23 AM

OK the card itself does not need 400watts, I'll look up the power draw in a minute but you have 480 watts and ATI says you only need 400 so you are fine unless something else on your system is a power hog (I'm almost 100% sure you will be fine but I'll look in a minute anyways)

The memory is not an issue at all. Like you were thinking the video card has its own memory that is completely independent of system memory. It is very common for video card memory to be much better/faster then system memory.
November 25, 2007 12:43:34 AM

Thanks. Now I'm shopping around to find the best price! Thanks for all your help!
November 25, 2007 12:51:46 AM

The big questions are:

Does your MB support AGP 4 or 8x? and is there room for the card?

I'm guessing you are going to be OK because the card is fairly small, (unlike say an 8800GTX), and your system seems new enough to have at least AGP 4x.

Heck I'm not doing anything important, I'll look that stuff up too.....


....OK I checked. The Dell 4600 seems to have 8x slot so you are good to go. Mini tower so plenty of room as well.
November 25, 2007 1:07:19 AM

ok. I knew I had at least a 4X so I thought it would work.
November 25, 2007 1:20:37 AM

Finally on the vendor. Buy from whoever you are comfortable with (I don't sell stuff or work for a company that sells stuff). If you need a suggestion NewEgg totally rocks. They have good prices and super fast shipping (might be a little slower this time of year for x-mas) Ask around if you don't believe me.

ZipZoomFly and Frys also tend to have good prices.

If you end up being amazed at how fast NewEgg is and want to know how they do it ( or are just curious) check this out:

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2694&p=1
November 25, 2007 2:58:59 AM

Lakedude takes deep breath....

OK There are several versions of the hd2600. Some of those cards have 256 MB ram and some have 512 MB. All things being equal the 512 would be better for high res displays playing games that use high res textures. The memory size is not very important for lower res displays and smaller textures. The 2600 card really isn't fast enough to make full use of 512 MB so you really don't need 512 MB IMHO. Some may disagree.

The other difference is that some of those cards are XTs (faster) and some are PROs (slower). xt > pro

So the "best" card of the bunch is the 512 MB XT but it is also much more expensive (and IMHO not worth it).

The 512 MB PRO is about the same price as the 256 MB XT. The XT will be faster. The 512 MB PRO has more "space" to work at higher res with larger textures (like in higher quality game settings) but it isn't fast enough IMO to make use of the extra ram.

So my choice would be the faster (XT) cheaper (256 MB) card. You might want to get a second opinion since this is all debatable. I'd trust Cleeve or the GreatApe-dude.

If you wanted to spend as much as the 512 MB XT you might also look at the 1950 cards.
November 25, 2007 2:21:20 PM

ok. Thanks a lot.
a b U Graphics card
November 26, 2007 5:25:06 AM

Yeah I'd say the HD2600XT is the best bet, prefer it over the X1950s actually, but mainly because we're talking about a system that will deal best with finesse.

The speed of the core and the VRAM are the more important items, but VRAM size is nice if you don't have to sacrifice for it. In this case take the speed of the VRAM, because while 512MB might help fractionally over 256MB, especially on slower bus, it won't make up for any significant speed boost. So faster 256 > slower 512.

The X1950 is also a consideration, but it will draw a little more power if that's a concern;

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd2600xt-gddr4_5.html#sect0

In some situations the X1950 will have a little less finesse; it will outperform more often than not now, but as time goes forward you should see them draw even or the HD2600XT pass it as games get a little more shader intensive;
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gv-rx26t256h_13.html#sect0

So as long as you're not expecting miracles out of the HD2600 it should be solid, but if you primarily play old games, then the X1950Pro might be worth looking at closer.
November 26, 2007 9:03:56 AM

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

This has my win for the AGP bus, 70$ X1650PRO GDDR3(most Pro's are GDDR2 which is what you want to avoid)

X1950XT This card is what you want if your Really planning on keeping that Computer alive. The best card for AGP to date. 200$ is alot of money but that card will run every current game at the highest detail.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Personally the 2600XT as shown by it far better PCI-E brethren, absolutely sucks, limited by ROPs and Texture units that card cannot scale well with game demanding such, 120 Stream processors are pretty impressive and i do agree kick ass in shader intensive environments, but when you massacre a card with such a limited bandwidth, ROPS, etc. it will not show what card potential it can have say, if it was 256bit with a 256MB and 8 ROPs, 8-12 texture units.
November 26, 2007 9:04:15 PM

So the big question is how much do you want to spend?

1950xt > 1950pro > 2600xt-512 > 2600xt-256 > 2600pros > 1650pro-ddr3 > 1650pro-ddr2

Prices are all pretty much in line except the 2600pro-512 is more expensive and not as fast as the 2600xt-256.

The 1950xt is the fastest card you can get for agp. It is hard to find new. Notice that the cards xazax linked to are OPEN BOX. Still if you wanted to spend $200 the 1950xt is as fast as it gets for AGP.

If your budget is closer to $120 get the 2600xt-256 and if your budget is more like $70 then look at the 1650.

Also no card you can get including the 1950xt will be able to play the very latest games at highest detail. Games like Crysis are system killers and can't be played on highest detail at all by any reasonably priced system. World in Conflict is another one that will bring a system to its knees. The good news is that such games always have lower settings that still look pretty darn good.
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2007 8:33:37 PM

HD2600XT gets my vote for sure as best high end agp bang for buck. It's one of the few AGP cards not overpriced. Look at newer games and without fsaa it is totally smoking the other AGP cards in it's price range. (7800GS/7600GT/X1650GT or XT) With fsaa the X1950 pro is better, but otherwise not worth the $$$ premium over the 2600XT.
November 27, 2007 10:54:08 PM

Yep
December 6, 2007 5:27:47 PM

i cueently have a 7900gs agp card and am wondering if the hd2600xt is an improvement over my 7900gs.

also i've read here on tom's that the hd3850 is coming to agp. should i wait for that and how would that compare to my 7900gs?

also, is nvidia bringing anything new to agp as well?
December 6, 2007 6:19:27 PM

The HD2600XT is NOT an upgrade to your current card (check out Tom's VGA benchmarks list...the 7900gs at stock is 30% faster than the 2600XT.). The 7900gs, which I own, overclocks easily and safely, which can widen the gap further. The 3850 eats the 7900gs's lunch...don't bother with a ATI 2000 series card...
a b U Graphics card
December 8, 2007 8:53:16 AM

Actually in more recent shader intensive games the HD2600XT and GF8600 beat the GF7900GS which is very texture heavy but doesn't have the shader power of even an X1950Pro.

I agree it's not worth upgrading, but when buying new the GF7900 series would be a bad choice because it only outperforms in older games.
December 15, 2007 7:01:52 PM

I was told to check this card out as an good cheap upgrade. 2600xt. I asked what would be an improvement for me to play oblivion with since I am stuck on 640 x 800 resolution. I got my computer like 2 months before the pci express was announced. Bad timing but I don't play graphics heavy games besides oblivion. Current card is about 5 years old
Geforce xf 5950 ultra. So can I expect a pretty good upgrade? Other thing that worries me is the 2 reviews on Newegg that say there are 0 drivers for this card.
December 16, 2007 3:48:59 AM

2600 XT is an awesome upgrade from a 5950 ultra. ESPECIALLY in newer, shader heavy titles.
March 7, 2008 8:06:26 AM

lakedude said:
Here it is:

http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp?s=2&c=7&t=9354

The hd2600xt draws only 49 watts!!!


Actually it says much more than 49 watts, though at first glance on the graphics of xbitlabs it does seem that 49 watts is max under load... But looking closer it is 49 + watts. In fact, it shows all the strange text before the #'s have a specific meaning. Below is the legend that gives their values quoted.

First the graph values were as follows.

Graph Legend
-------------------
' = 1 Watt
| = 2 Watts
} = 4 Watts
# = 8 Watts
¦) = 8 Watts (min draw mark)
¦] = 8 Watts (max 2D draw mark)


Then followed a list under

ATI Single Card

scrolling down some more you find

HD 2600 XT_______##¦)¦]##' 21W-28W-49W ²


While these cards are very economical being 65nm, this card has up to 390 million transistors. I don't believe it runs at only 49 watts. In fact the vendors site specifically states "400 Watt (550 Watt for CrossFire™) or greater power supply recommended"
http://ati.amd.com/products/radeonhd2600/radeonhd2600xt/specs.html

This falls more in line with the values I list below.

If each card only drew 49 watts they would say only 500 watt for crossfire and not the full 150 watts more ATi themselves suggest as a minimal. Also also depends on manufacturing as they all use the ATi chipset, but have all used many have a different cooling options, some better and more efficient than others. Also some are clocked higher out of the box with higher core frequencies, some are 256 vs 512... other variables such as passive cooling as opposed to a turbo fan like the HIS IceQ series. Obviously some fans are better at this then others, and so it is left to you to decide on each manufacturer who is the best.

Here for instance are a few sites that supports the higher values that or probably more in line with the actual power of that card.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_2600_XT/17.html
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/powercolor_hd_2600_xt_review/8.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/1778-ati-hd2600xt-performance-preview-7.html

As the vendor themself say you need a full 150 watts more for a second card. The link is below if you want to look at their pretty graphics.

that is
idle it runs about 126 watts
average load at around 168 watts and under
heavier load can pull more than 179 watts.

Also websites having pretty graphics is no proof their information or actual values are correct, as I have found often that some sites just copy the information, repackage it and publish it as their own. Then people thinking that the information must be correct make poor decisions based on the information which was incorrect to begin with. I am not saying that this has happened here or that xbitlabs.com who made the initial calculations are more or less correct than the 2 links above, but this is why I think it is always better to search on the vendors site to find specific information or at least look at more than one source.

Though usually meant well dont always believe what people quote in a forum. Best to simply google the specs from the vendor and to prevent a conflict say like what has happened here... One site claims 49 watts under full load and others are at the 120 to 195 watts, I would be cautious and make a PSU purchase based on the higher #'s to be on the safe side...

I realize this is an older thread but perhaps someone reads this and makes a choice thinking a2600 is only going to use 49 watss.. I hope this is help to someone
!