Anand's x1950p review: CrossFire Done Right

[apoppin]

UPDATE DW replies in thread!
[thanks]

Update: Wrong wrong wrong.

Ati informed the AIBs that the product would be changed well in advance

the difference is like 1%
==================================

Final Words

As much as we would like to end this review of a solid product on a high note, we've got to drive home the point that significantly decreasing the specs of a product after it ships is simply not acceptable. The fact that ATI would drop the core clock speed of the X1900 GT by 11% and raise the memory clock by 10% to try to hide the difference is not something we want to see happen. There will be a performance difference between the new and old parts, and not changing the name on the box is simply dishonest. At least ATI has delivered a solid product in the X1950 Pro.

Anyway . . . here's the X1950pro review:

ATI Radeon X1950 Pro: CrossFire Done Right

$200 bucks for the x1950p is awesome!

 

[apoppin]

doesn't anyone else think that's pretty crap
:thumbsdown:

despicable

. . . what a crappy company . . .
:Q


. . . but such a great product


maybe AMD will set them right

DAAMit

 

[sandorski]

meh, buy based upon Retail, not pre-view

 

[Avalon]

Nice card, crappy bait and switch on the X1900GT specs. Hopefully people will read the specs of the card before they pull the trigger, and it won't stay on the shelves much longer while the X1950pro is on its way.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Avalon
Nice card, crappy bait and switch on the X1900GT specs. Hopefully people will read the specs of the card before they pull the trigger, and it won't stay on the shelves much longer while the X1950pro is on its way.

it really is 'bait and switch' . . . not sure if there will be legal action since it was simply 'previewed' with higher spes . . . but many fanATIcs will just grab the box and not look at the specs . .. 'till later . . . hope they RMA a bunch of 'em.

but it looks BAD . . . cutting down an 'expensive' card specs to make a cheaper one with higher profits look better.
:thumbsdown:

shame

even if i AM planning to get an x1950p in AGP if it is close to the $250 mark or less.

 

[Creig]

Changing clock speeds without also changing the model designation makes things confusing. Kind of like trying to figure out which 6200 or 9550 had 128 bit memory and which had 64 bit.

Has anyone done any benchmarks to see what the actual performance difference is between the two versions of X1900GT? Maybe it's small enough in most instances to not make much difference.

 

[Elfear]

It is pretty lame of ATI to change the specs of the card midway (or there abouts) through its life cycle. Some people are going to be disappointed after seeing benchamarks of the X1900GT and than buying the new version. Maybe performance will be the same though since the memory is now being clocked at 1320Mhz instead of 1200MHz.

One question I have about the article though (besides Anandtech's refusal to use HQ settings for both cards), how come only half the games were benched using AA?? I know the low-end cards struggle with a lot of AA and higher resolutions but I'm sure some compromise could have been found. Just seems odd that with AA being so popular nowdays that it would be left out of half the benchmarks.

 

[CaiNaM]

who the hell would by a 1900GT anyway?

the 1800xt was a better prodcut.
the 1900xt 256mb is a better product.
the 1950p will be a better product.

not to mention nvidia products. the 1900GT was never a good value when measured against other cards, whether they were ATI or Nvidia.

 

[crazydingo]

The change in specs for the X1900GT was made because it was the best way to go in not decreasing the performance by much while having much better gpu temps. All this was informed to the AIBs more than a month back. So tying the change of spec in X1900GT to X1950 Pro's launch makes one look like a conspiracy theorist.

Derek got it wrong or maybe he isnt as informed as other reviewing authors. :laugh:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
who the hell would by a 1900GT anyway?

now . . . no one.

BUT that isn't the point . . . ATi should have just discontinued them and/or sold them with a name change on the box - i.e. 1900GT/LE


what ATi did was pretty dishonest

EDIT

All this was informed to the AIBs more than a month back.

. . . and as Usual, crazydingo, please give us a link to show where Derek got it wrong . . . i'd like to believe you . . .

minus 10-11% clocks IS a big deal
:thumbsdown:

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: apoppin
EDIT

All this was informed to the AIBs more than a month back.

. . . and as Usual, crazydingo, please show us a link to show where Derek got it wrong . . . i'd like to believe you . . .

This change was made more than a month back, thats proof enough.

If I were to believe you or Derek, we havent yet landed on the moon, right?

Where is teh 10-11% drop in performance? Memory speed was bumped up for the decrease in core speed, wasnt it? Why are you looking just at the downclock? Biased are we? :laugh:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: apoppin
EDIT

All this was informed to the AIBs more than a month back.

. . . and as Usual, crazydingo, please show us a link to show where Derek got it wrong . . . i'd like to believe you . . .

This change was made more than a month back, thats proof enough.

If I were to believe you or Derek, we havent yet landed on the moon, right?

enough talk . . .
link please

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: apoppin
EDIT

All this was informed to the AIBs more than a month back.

. . . and as Usual, crazydingo, please show us a link to show where Derek got it wrong . . . i'd like to believe you . . .

This change was made more than a month back, thats proof enough.

If I were to believe you or Derek, we havent yet landed on the moon, right?

link please

Will you shut up if I oblige you with a link? Or will you twist it again on some other front?

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: apoppin
what ATi did was pretty dishonest

ATI dropped the core clock from 575 to 512 (63Mhz lower), but they also RAISED the memory speed from 1200 to 1320 (120MHz higher). Personally, I'd think it would be wiser to see what effect this has on overall performance before declaring ATI a fraud. Perhaps this card is even a tad faster overall than the old version. Perhaps not. But until we see some benches it's all just blind guesswork.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: apoppin
BUT that isn't the point . . . ATi should have just discontinued them and/or sold them with a name change on the box - i.e. 1900GT/LE

it was MY point that the GT was never a very good card compared to it's competition (or even other cards around the same pricepoint within it's own brand).

Originally posted by: apoppin
what ATi did was pretty dishonest

i disagree. what's dishonest about it? they're not hiding anything. there's nothing dishonest about it if they announce the changes and properly display the specs on the packaging. prices and specs are always subject to change in retail products, and always have been - and we don't even know what performance difference this will make at this point.

i certainly agree that there are probably better ways for ATI to approach this, and i wouldn't take issue with those who feel it's a bit misleading, but the fact is the entire naming convention used on video cards from both manufactuers is a bit misleading and causes alot of confusion.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: apoppin
EDIT

All this was informed to the AIBs more than a month back.

. . . and as Usual, crazydingo, please show us a link to show where Derek got it wrong . . . i'd like to believe you . . .

This change was made more than a month back, thats proof enough.

If I were to believe you or Derek, we havent yet landed on the moon, right?

link please

Will you shut up if I oblige you with a link? Or will you twist it again on some other front?

link please

fulfill your part of the obligation to backup what you say

nevermind what an unreasonable person will do with your info

EDIT: yes Creig, Derek covered that change:

we've got to drive home the point that significantly decreasing the specs of a product after it ships is simply not acceptable. The fact that ATI would drop the core clock speed of the X1900 GT by 11% and raise the memory clock by 10% to try to hide the difference is not something we want to see happen. There will be a performance difference between the new and old parts, and not changing the name on the box is simply dishonest.

he did say ATi changed it "after it ships" . .. and although he says that they dropped the core and raised the memory to hide it he says the performance decreased.

that is a strong accusation and IF it is true . . . it sucks[period]

damn . . . i have NEVER argued with ATi fans before .. . . you are as bad as the green guys.

 

[sandorski]

Oh, they changed the specs in the middle of the cycle? If so, that does suck. My first post assumed Pre-release/Release changes.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: apoppin
what ATi did was pretty dishonest

ATI dropped the core clock from 575 to 512 (63Mhz lower), but they also RAISED the memory speed from 1200 to 1320 (120MHz higher). Personally, I'd think it would be wiser to see what effect this has on overall performance before declaring ATI a fraud. Perhaps this card is even a tad faster overall than the old version. Perhaps not. But until we see some benches it's all just blind guesswork.

I agree, Derek can bitch about ATI, but why not just bench the cards... Maybe bench them with AA for a change too... C'mon the X1950Pro hits 80fps in FEAR @ 1280x960 with 0AA, and they don't even bother to bench with AA!?! Still no HQ benchmarks for NV either...

 

[apoppin]

well shoot Derek an e-mail and ask him to bench the difference.

still waiting for that link, crazydingo . . . it IS important if ATi changed the spec before or after it shipped [as the article claims].

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: apoppin
. . . it IS important if ATi changed the spec before or after it shipped [as the article claims].

why?

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: apoppin
damn . . . i have NEVER argued with ATi fans before .. . . you are as bad as the green guys.

Well excuse me for wanting to see actual benchmarks before condemning a product. I obviously have more to learn about computer hardware since some people seem to actually be able to judge a card's performance by simply looking at it.

 

[Pabster]

Disappointing.

A pair of $200 X1950 Pro's can barely compete with a stock X1900XTX?

I like the design and the new CrossFire method but frankly performance isn't much to talk about.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
who the hell would by a 1900GT anyway?

the 1800xt was a better prodcut.
the 1900xt 256mb is a better product.
the 1950p will be a better product.

not to mention nvidia products. the 1900GT was never a good value when measured against other cards, whether they were ATI or Nvidia.

I'd have to agree. ATI did do a bit of a bait and switch with the X1900GT, but it never received a large launch, and it wasn't really that attractive of a card ever... Plus it's not like the performance is tremendously different, with an 11% drop in core speed and and 11% increase in memory speed. Not like they cut 4 more pipelines/12 pixel shaders out of the card or something insane like that...

When the X1900GT was launched, it was selling for a similar price to the X1900XT 256MB, which crushes it. No justification for getting an X1900GT whatsoever, unless you absolutely could not find an X1900XT 256 and you could find a great deal on an X1900GT. The X1950 Pro was announced shortly after the GT, and it looked more attractive on paper too: single slot, 80nm, better Crossfire solution.

The X1950 Pro looks like a solid card, especially once it drops below its $199 MSRP. Like the X1800XL, the X1950 Pro is slower than its competition (7800GT bested an X1800XL slightly; 7950GT is faster than the X1950 Pro) but the price on the X1950 Pro is right...
----------

The thing that bothers me about ATI here is their new incredible "internal compositing engine" on the X1950 Pro. Congradulations guys, you've come up with a bridge just like SLI. It's like they want a medal for going from the dongle to Nvidia's solution, which in hindslight they maybe should have done all along.

I figured that it would mean no need to connect anything on the cards and do everything via the PCI-e bus (I think the X1650 does Crossfire that way, right?). Guess not.

--------

Looks like there's still some performance issues, but ATI are getting better. Good performance in FEAR, Half Life 2 and a couple games which need to be optimized. Not too shabby -- Nvidia is clearly ahead in optimizing their drivers for SLI, but they also have about a year's head start. So ATI is doing a decent job of trailing..

 

[Pantalaimon]

This was posted on Beyond3D on September 7th. It's still there on their news page towards the end of the page.

Beyond3D has learned of an upcoming specifications change to X1900 GT. The new spec lowers the clock speed by 63MHz, from 575MHz to 512MHz, while increasing the memory speed by 60MHz from 600MHz to 660MHz (1320MHz effective). A PCB redesign is also included to accomodate a fan change anticpated to produce improved accoustics, and HDCP capability is included by default on the new boards.

 

[mikek753]

How AT came up with $200 price?
It sales everywhere for $299.99

Also, I don't like AT benches that based on 7900GT 450 mhz.
I'd like to see those benches with 7900GT 550 and 600 mhz.

p.s. I run x1950pro on my home PC and it OC pretty good based on CCC - it goes to 74C range at load - not bad vs up to 100C for XT