AGP X1600Pro

[Wolfshanze]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before, as anyone who talks about ATI AGP cards usually refers to the X850XT as the top-of-the-line card... I just heard about this... does the AGP X1600Pro replace the X850XT as the best AGP solution from ATI?

500MHz core
12-pipes
128-bit memory interface
256MB (800MHz DDR2)
SM 3.0 support

I'm not really knowledgeable about ATI cards, so how does this card stack up with other ATI and NVidia cards for AGP?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Yep repost. But I can't find the link. Someone linked it for sale at allstarshop.com . Anyways, it seems to be a decent midrange solution for those who are financially burdoned.

EDIT: I haven't seen any benchmarks. Would be interesting to see. Altho, that 128- bit memory interface is a cripling factor. But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

 

[v8envy]

Only 4 texture units/ ROPs makes this effectively a 4 pipe card. But a very fast 4 pipe card. On something which is pretty much nothing but shader ops (3dmark05), this bad boy tears it up.

In real world games, it's about equivalent to a 6600GT. Slightly less memory bandwidth, but gets about the same performance except in games in which the X1K series is lacking (e.g., BW2, AoE3)

It's nowhere near the power of an X850 (which is closer to a 7800GT [which itself is about 2 6800GTs SLI] than 6600GT in performance). But does have SM 3.0, and mpeg4 playback acceleration.

 

[CKXP]

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1785460&enterthread=y yeah it's been mentioned before, but haven't heard much else about it, at least review wise.

 

[Wolfshanze]

I just don't get ATI... you would think a X1600 would be better then a X850... call me crazy, but they need to do better with their naming schemes... the X1600 has things the X850 doesn't (SM 3.0 support), but is overall the slower card of the two... strange. Makes no sense to me... oh well.

I just wanted to post this for folks in case it was news... turns out it's not news. For a minute I thought ATI was offering a new higher-end card for AGP then they had offered before... I didn't realize this card was more like a 6600GT. ATI's naming-schemes are weird.

 

[v8envy]

Makes perfect sense. The 1600 is a mid to low-end card, and performs like one. With a $149 MSRP it's not intended to replace a $400 MSRP X850XT.

Laws of supply and demand have pushed the pricing on X850XTs into the low $200 range. The X1600 only came out last month/now, and as such has a price premium which puts it head to head with cards which vastly outperform it (6800, X800GTO and X850XT). When you disregard its current price, it's a very good competitor to its intended victim -- the 6600GT.

Besides, the AGP world is strange and wacky. AGPers will take what they're given, and LIKE it. It's not like their choices are going to expand any time soon.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Makes perfect sense. The 1600 is a mid to low-end card, and performs like one.

I was refering to the naming convention not it's actual performance and price-point.

One would think that 1600 is higher then 850 and therefore faster. It obviously is not in the case of ATI, and the 1600 is a lower-end card (with more features) then a 850, and this is why I called ATI's naming convention odd.

Not saying that any of their cards don't do what they are supposed to do (or targetted against), I just find the naming conventions odd.

 

[Frostwake]

One would think that 1600 is higher then 850 and therefore faster

I dont find it odd, everyone does it... lets take a look.. usually the first number indicates the last generation of cards, and the second/third the segment at which it was designed for...

Radeon x18xx > x8xx/ > 9700/9800
Radeon x16xx > x6xx/x7xx > 9500/9600
Radeon x13xx > x3xx > 9000/9200

So, we have the 9k series cards, then the xk series in which x stands for 10 so =10k series and then x1k which x + 1 = 11 k series... logical isnt it?

 

[Stu L Tissimus]

Makes sense, but I still think X1k should've been XIk... >_>

 

[Wolfshanze]

Radeon x18xx > x8xx/ > 9700/9800
Radeon x16xx > x6xx/x7xx > 9500/9600
Radeon x13xx > x3xx > 9000/9200

So, we have the 9k series cards, then the xk series in which x stands for 10 so =10k series and then x1k which x + 1 = 11 k series... logical isnt it?

I must be getting old... "Back in my day", 16 was a higher number then 8.... 1,600 was also higher then 850.

I suppose in some sort of Generation-X, hip/fly sort of way what you just said makes sense... but I'm getting too old when I think 16 is a higher number then 8. Math sure has changed since I was in school.

At least I know with NVidia all cards that start with 7 are newer cards then those that start with 6. All this "new math" is hurting my head!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wolfshanze

Makes perfect sense. The 1600 is a mid to low-end card, and performs like one.

I was refering to the naming convention not it's actual performance and price-point.

One would think that 1600 is higher then 850 and therefore faster. It obviously is not in the case of ATI, and the 1600 is a lower-end card (with more features) then a 850, and this is why I called ATI's naming convention odd.

Not saying that any of their cards don't do what they are supposed to do (or targetted against), I just find the naming conventions odd.

no no no

there is the 9800 series - x800- x1800

then

there is the 9600 series - x600 - x1600

even

there is the 9700 series - x700 - x1700

you just got the lines mixed up