1800XT vs. 1900GT

[Scatterplot]

So which of these is a better choice? Assume they are the same price, $200. Here are two links to a couple of them-
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814142068
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102698
The 1900GT is sometimes availible with a MIR taking the price down to $200.
I've heard people talk about both sides of this, and I see on newegg that the specs for the 1800XT seem to be higher than the 1900GT. For example, 625 vs 575mhz core clock, 16 vs 12 pixel pipelines, and 1500 vs 1200 mhz memory clock. All in favor of the 1800XT. So it would appear it is better... but then why the greater price on the 1900GT? I think there is something I'm missing, since I barely know what those stats I quoted actually mean, so would someone clear up the muddy waters for me?

(BTW, I'm looking to spend Maybe $200 on a video card, already upped my budget from approx. $150 7600GT, so this is about as high as I go, maybe just a hair higher for a significant leap, but any other $200 cards you could suggest would be cool too- thanks!)

 

[gobucks]

x1900GT is cheaper to make for ATi cause it's built on a smaller process than the X1800XT, and they can just sell off X1900 cores that can't make the grade as XT or XTX parts. the x1800XT is big and expensive to make, so that's why ATI is trying to phase it out in favor of the X1900GT. Plus ATI probably figures people who don't know better will pay extra for the X1900GT because it's from the newest series (X1900 must be faster than an X1800 mentality)

but better for ATI doesn't mean better for you. the low pipeline count and slow memory speed really hurt it compared to the X1800XT. there are technically some situations where the X1900GT can come out ahead, because it has 36 pixel shaders versus 16 for the X1800XT, but most of the time the 16 pipes and 16 pixel shaders is much better than 12 pipes and 36 shaders.

here, read the review:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/powercolor-x1900gt.html
as you can see, the X1900GT is quite a bit slower.

 

[Kromis]

What gobucks is trying to say is...

Get the X1800XT. The X1900GT may lead in a some games by a few frame rates but that doesn't justify the extra $100. I know we are assuming the cards are the same price but still, the X1800XT is the better buy. Besides, the X1900GT is gonna get replaced anyways.

 

[hardwareking]

@gobucks-FYI,both the x1800 xt and the x1900 gt are made on the 90 nm process.And it's a bit more expensive to make a gt cause,they have to manufacture a r580 core and then cut up the pipelines and shaders.And the x1900 gt die size is quite a bit larger than that of the x1800 xt.So u figure which is cheaper/costlier to produce.They phased out the x1800 xt cause it's not economically viable to be making to high end chips together.(r580 and r520)
The x1800 xt beats the x1900 gt cause of its higher clocks(core/mem) and the 512mb onboard memory(not that important)
@scatterplot-if u can find an x1800 xt.Buy it cause it'll do u proud until dx10 becomes an issue.
If not the x1900 gt would be just as good.But both are gonna be replaced by the RV570,coming in september.

 

[akshayt]

1950Pro

 

[hmorphone]

The problem is that the x-bit labs review compares the X1900GT with a 512 meg X1800XT. Most reviews do, and as a general rule the 512 meg X1800XT does beat up on the X1900GT. The X1800XT 512 meg card picks up quite a bit of performance over the 256 meg X1800XT though. I haven't found a review yet that lets me compare both cards in the 256 meg versions. When I got my GT the choices were - X1900GT under $200, X1800XT 256 about $200, or X1800XT 512 about $250. Of the three, the GT is a single slot solution, quieter, and may perform better than the 256 meg X1800XT in the newest games thanks to it's extra shaders. All 3 are good cards (and all 3 will probably be spanked by the X1950 pro which will probably be in turn spanked by a cutdown R600.)

 

[hardwareking]

pure overclock has a review comparing the 256 mb x1800 xt to the x1900 gt and the 7900 gt.
And i still find ithard to believe that an extra 256mb will offer a great increase in performance.Only games i can think which will use all of the 512mb would quake 4 and doom3 and prey on ultra quality.

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: hardwareking
And i still find ithard to believe that an extra 256mb will offer a great increase in performance.Only games i can think which will use all of the 512mb would quake 4 and doom3 and prey on ultra quality.

Agreed. You really have to crank up the res/detail to require >256MB. And both x1800xt versions have the same core and (v.fast) memory clocks, so in most (i.e. non-ultra) comparisons they perform identically.

 

[CaiNaM]

on x1800xt 512 makes a marginal difference in most everything, and a substantial difference in some (i had both, and posted some quick #'s on both in a thread i'm too lazy to look up now). CoD2 and FEAR showed a significant increase from the extra mem iirc.

 

[Ulfhednar]

The X1900GT is a tiny bit slower than an X1800XT, but it has 36 shaders which might pull it ahead in upcoming games like Crysis. You can also get a HIS X1900GT with an IceQ 3 cooler for almost the same price as an X1800XT here in the UK.

 

[betasub]

CaiNam: Interested to read your thread (or see your original data) on x1800XT

 

[orangat]

Will the x1900gt be relative faster in newer shader heavy games? From the xbitlabs benches, it lags significantly behind the x1800xt even in new shader heavy games.
I think the double penalty of slower memory (25% slower) and 25% less TMUs is too much to make up even in newer games.