ATI 1900XT 256mb

[jodoog]

Hey, wondering how the 1900XT 256 mb compares to the 1950XTX. Its £130 cheaper (to spend on speakers 🙂 ) and I run 1280x1024. I will be replacing it at Christmas 2007. Is there any difference in IQ first of all? And secondly is it simply about 10fps less? Any other advantages the 1950XTX has? (I like to run HDR AA AF etc. but dont mind putting down shadows or something if I save a bunch of money heh).

Thanks!

Joe

PS: I wont be changing monitors any time soon.

 

[RussianSensation]

Please start review here

Honestly, based on historical performance of Radeon 8500 64mb vs. 128mb, 9800xt 256mb vs. 9800pro 128mb, 5900xt vs. 5950 ultra, 6800ultra vs. 6800gt, 7800gtx vs. 7800gt, etc. once the lower speed card is too slow in general for latest games, the next fastest card in the same generation (assuming both were high end) is also too slow. For example, 6800Ultra might get 29 frames while 6800gt will get 21 frame rates in a game, both unplayable. I am willing to bet by the time 512mb is mainstream, X1950xt will be too slow anyways.

In addition, neither card is DX10 so spending 130 pounds more doesn't justify the investment imo. On the other hand, your ears will appreciate good quality sound. I have built 2 systems since 2001 and will be upgrading to 3rd in 2 weeks and since 2001 i still have my 19 inch viewsonic monitor and creative 5.1 speakers - both are long-term investments unlike anything else in a system. So buy the speakers and X1900xt 256mb.

my 2 cents.

 

[YoungGun21]

I agree with RussianSensation go with the X1900xt

 

[akshayt]

Get a 512MB 1900XT.

Also, a 1950XTX at the moment should be on average may be like 30% faster than a 256MB 1900XT, and with better drivers, the difference may only increase.

Also, with just 256, there will be some games you may not be able to play at max/high settings.

1900XTX is waste if you gonna upgrade so soon though.

Also, difference between 6800GT and Ultra can't be of 21 and 29FPS in most of the cases.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: akshayt

Also, difference between 6800GT and Ultra can't be of 21 and 29FPS in most of the cases.

I said in most current games going beyond playable will result in 6800Ultra getting something like 29 framerates while 6800GT will get 21 framerates, both resulting in unplayable gameplay. You don't think that's a reasonable statement?

From Tom's VGA Charts:

1. HL2: episode 1 - 1600x1200 4AA/8AF
6800U = 29
6800GT = 26

2. Hard Truck Apocalypse = 1600x1200 4AA in game AF
6800U = 24
6800GT = 21

3. Oblivion - 1600x1200 no AA
6800U = 33
6800GT = 28

4. Prey - 1600x1200 4AA/8AF
6800U = 24
6800GT = 21

5. Rise of Nations - 1024x768, no AA
6800U = 28
6800GT = 25

6. Titan Quest - 1024x768 no AA
6800U = 17
6800GT = 16

So in summary, the numbers I provided even favoured the 6800Ultra. It turns out that 6800Ultra has even lower performance advantage over 6800GT. Back when games were not as intensive, we often saw 20%+ performance advantage. Now, if 6800Ultra has 20% advantage, it still makes the same settings unplayble, thus mitigating such an advantage.

6800Ultra's core runs more than 20% faster, which can't be said about X1900xt 256mb vs. x1950xtx. So the only thing X1950xtx has going for it is extra ram and higher memory speed, which has been shown to give 5-7% performance advantage on average. Therefore, imo it is not worth it to pay 130 pounds for double the memory considering by the time games that take advantage of 512mb come out, X1950xtx will be just as slow as the 256mb variant of that card.

EDIT: Benches of BF2142 show that 512mb bring no serious performance advantage in any of the playable settings. 512 vs. 256 on X1900XT series