Got my X1900XT

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
At least let him show some benches before criticizing them. Maybe he'll find ATI to be far superior and switch? Maybe he'll prove that the voltmodded 7900gt is a good value. Don't dismiss him just because he's clearly biased for NVIDIA.

I'm afraid that is not going to be possible, though I wish it could happen. The ATI guys are freaking because of ST's good o/c and "may" threaten the X1900XT/XTX. A 300.00 dollar card rivaling a significantly more expensive card's performance. Sure, you can o/c the XT as well. But I don't think that is what this is about. The NV guys are freaking because.... well, I really don't see them freaking yet, but they will as soon as the ATI guys do everything they can to dismiss the whole ordeal.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
The X1800XT wasnt even stable enough to bench. The vr-zone folks i consider that they are good at OCing (mostly due to shamino), and the fact they stated that the GT was stable even at 700+ mhz on the core unlike the X1800XT using air cooling and a 480W power supply!.

Most GTs are atleast hitting 550/1600 on core/mem. Thats already close to 7800GTX 512mb speeds. (plus thats 1.2v stock volts)

Yes but are more than a handful hitting 700 mhz? Since you asserted to speeds as high as 800 mhz being easily attainable via air cooling, one would think 700 mhz would be a piece of cake. For example, here's some quick data on what X1900XT and XTX users are getting with their overclocks: http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=440151&page=1&pp=30 This is without any sort of permanent hardware mods (e.g. soldered volt mod); majority are stock cooling and the rest are on water and other types of cooling.

Joker, I have a link here with FEAR results before and after a 7900GT volt mod. Check them out. And, if you have the game FEAR (full retail) and don't mind, run the built in bench at the same settings with your watercooled XTX. I will post results (if you wish) on the same web page. If you could and it's not to much trouble, post stock speeds and o/c speeds.

The guy who made those benches, 1Dark1Sharigan1 will also bench BF2 soon. So if you have that one, well, it's up to you.

It would be very interesting to see. Thanks.

EDIT: Please post your rig specs to. Thanks.

EDIT2: These are AT's FEAR benches. Does anyone know if they just use the AVG. scores in these graphs? Not Max or Min. Anyways this is from March so new drivers are out and such, but it offers a good comparo to 1Dark1Sharigan1's benches.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
The X1800XT wasnt even stable enough to bench. The vr-zone folks i consider that they are good at OCing (mostly due to shamino), and the fact they stated that the GT was stable even at 700+ mhz on the core unlike the X1800XT using air cooling and a 480W power supply!.

Most GTs are atleast hitting 550/1600 on core/mem. Thats already close to 7800GTX 512mb speeds. (plus thats 1.2v stock volts)

Yes but are more than a handful hitting 700 mhz? Since you asserted to speeds as high as 800 mhz being easily attainable via air cooling, one would think 700 mhz would be a piece of cake. For example, here's some quick data on what X1900XT and XTX users are getting with their overclocks: http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=440151&page=1&pp=30 This is without any sort of permanent hardware mods (e.g. soldered volt mod); majority are stock cooling and the rest are on water and other types of cooling.

Joker, I have a link here with FEAR results before and after a 7900GT volt mod. Check them out. And, if you have the game FEAR (full retail) and don't mind, run the built in bench at the same settings with your watercooled XTX. I will post results (if you wish) on the same web page. If you could and it's not to much trouble, post stock speeds and o/c speeds.

The guy who made those benches, 1Dark1Sharigan1 will also bench BF2 soon. So if you have that one, well, it's up to you.

It would be very interesting to see. Thanks.

EDIT: Please post your rig specs to. Thanks.

I don't have it installed but I can probably reinstall it later on. Is he using the latest patch?

 

[Keysplayr]

I could ask him for exact details. Anything else you need to know besides that patch?
Thanks.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I could ask him for exact details. Anything else you need to know besides that patch?
Thanks.

Well game settings would be helpful and any ini tweaks he's done along with cp settings.

 

[Keysplayr]

Ok, I just PM'd him.

 

[BFG10K]

interesting..how can he do that? he got the cards april 28th and today is april 28th how can he finish all tests in less than 1 day.

So he has time to post up 3Dmark results but he can't comment on fan noise or put up some real benchmarks?

The Fear benchmark takes about 40 seconds to run for heaven's sake.

poor Ati fans dnt be afraid..

:roll:

 

[Alaa]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
:roll:

look at ati fans posts..!

 

[Zenoth]

Hey, ST, I'd like to compare my 3DMark06 score with yours (your X1900 XT one).

Could I get a compare link please ? It might help me determine if I just need to wait for R600/G80, or go with an upgrade before that.

Thanks.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
At least let him show some benches before criticizing them. Maybe he'll find ATI to be far superior and switch? Maybe he'll prove that the voltmodded 7900gt is a good value. Don't dismiss him just because he's clearly biased for NVIDIA.

I'm afraid that is not going to be possible, though I wish it could happen. The ATI guys are freaking because of ST's good o/c and "may" threaten the X1900XT/XTX. A 300.00 dollar card rivaling a significantly more expensive card's performance. Sure, you can o/c the XT as well. But I don't think that is what this is about. The NV guys are freaking because.... well, I really don't see them freaking yet, but they will as soon as the ATI guys do everything they can to dismiss the whole ordeal.

The ATI guys aren't freaking... When someone basically says "time for the bs to stop" that's flamebait and you know it as well as I do. The 7900gt is a good card. In my honest opinion the X1800XT is better. You guys all talk about volt modding the 7900gt. Well if you voltmod you lose your warranty. And you need to replaced the pathetic stock 7900gt cooler. I won't touch that thing from a mile away. But whenever someone mentions to just use an aftermarket cooler for the X1800/X1900XT's for silence the NV fans must mention that you lose your warranty. Anyone can clearly see the biases here. Live with it. God people are biased. Everything you do is biased. Objectivity is determined by subjectivity. If you want a philisophical debate I'd be happy to pm you :-D.

ST's is a good oc. Who is denying that? But to say it's easy? I'd like to see some proof stating so many people can get 700mhz. Techpowerup did a review on a 7900gtx and they got the core to 658 at stock with that huge cooler. It uses 1.4v if I'm not mistaken so how is it easy to get 700mhz. And this is a GTX certified chip...

Even if the 7900gt is the same performance wise as any X1900XT which I would highly doubt there are many more factors. To some people AVIVO matters. To some people image quality. Really look at what you value more. For me it's the fact that Nvidia seems to cut corners and that I'm against there marketing policy/policies that makes me refuse to buy them. Whatever attributes you value more look at them and see which card suits you best.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
At least let him show some benches before criticizing them. Maybe he'll find ATI to be far superior and switch? Maybe he'll prove that the voltmodded 7900gt is a good value. Don't dismiss him just because he's clearly biased for NVIDIA.

I'm afraid that is not going to be possible, though I wish it could happen. The ATI guys are freaking because of ST's good o/c and "may" threaten the X1900XT/XTX. A 300.00 dollar card rivaling a significantly more expensive card's performance. Sure, you can o/c the XT as well. But I don't think that is what this is about. The NV guys are freaking because.... well, I really don't see them freaking yet, but they will as soon as the ATI guys do everything they can to dismiss the whole ordeal.

The ATI guys aren't freaking... When someone basically says "time for the bs to stop" that's flamebait and you know it as well as I do. The 7900gt is a good card. In my honest opinion the X1800XT is better. You guys all talk about volt modding the 7900gt. Well if you voltmod you lose your warranty. And you need to replaced the pathetic stock 7900gt cooler. I won't touch that thing from a mile away. But whenever someone mentions to just use an aftermarket cooler for the X1800/X1900XT's for silence the NV fans must mention that you lose your warranty. Anyone can clearly see the biases here. Live with it. God people are biased. Everything you do is biased. Objectivity is determined by subjectivity. If you want a philisophical debate I'd be happy to pm you :-D.

ST's is a good oc. Who is denying that? But to say it's easy? I'd like to see some proof stating so many people can get 700mhz. Techpowerup did a review on a 7900gtx and they got the core to 658 at stock with that huge cooler. It uses 1.4v if I'm not mistaken so how is it easy to get 700mhz. And this is a GTX certified chip...

Even if the 7900gt is the same performance wise as any X1900XT which I would highly doubt there are many more factors. To some people AVIVO matters. To some people image quality. Really look at what you value more. For me it's the fact that Nvidia seems to cut corners and that I'm against there marketing policy/policies that makes me refuse to buy them. Whatever attributes you value more look at them and see which card suits you best.

No real need for philosophical debates when we have folks with the actual hardware in question right here. Not really sure why you say I am biased here. I feel I have been rather neutral for the most part lately and try to even calm things down a bit. So, not really seeing what you're seeing. Sorry.

And ST's "Time for the BS to stop" could also mean he is tired of all the BS bickering and now he can truly see for himself who is full of BS and who is not, because he has all the hardware now. You can argue that he did not mean it in that way, buy why would you want to. It's not even worth the effort. Effort that can be better spent being focused on getting down to the bottom of issues, rumors, claims, etc. etc.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I could ask him for exact details. Anything else you need to know besides that patch?
Thanks.

Well game settings would be helpful and any ini tweaks he's done along with cp settings.

Joker, I got the info from DS-

"I used max settings for everything with Transparency MSAA enabled, High Quality driver settings, and LOD Clamp on. I used the built-in benchmark for the game. Nothing else as far as I'm concerned. Also using the most current patch (1.04)"

-DS

Keys

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
At least let him show some benches before criticizing them. Maybe he'll find ATI to be far superior and switch? Maybe he'll prove that the voltmodded 7900gt is a good value. Don't dismiss him just because he's clearly biased for NVIDIA.

I'm afraid that is not going to be possible, though I wish it could happen. The ATI guys are freaking because of ST's good o/c and "may" threaten the X1900XT/XTX. A 300.00 dollar card rivaling a significantly more expensive card's performance. Sure, you can o/c the XT as well. But I don't think that is what this is about. The NV guys are freaking because.... well, I really don't see them freaking yet, but they will as soon as the ATI guys do everything they can to dismiss the whole ordeal.

i don't think it's that way at all.

aside from the "mod" you have to do, how many do you think actually attain those clock speeds? 1 in 10? 2? 3?

what is the actual performance (comparitively) at 550mhz? 600mhz? 650mhz?

spending $300 on a card, is it a good value to get say, 80% of the performance for 75% of the price? 90%?

and which games do you reap those benefits from?

or how about texture filtering quality? is that umimportant to you? or the ability to have AA if you're running HDR?

balancing that equation is hardly conclusive, yet nv fans think if they can get close to the performance, it makes the GT a "better" card. in fact, it seems it's more important for them to be "better" then your claim it makes ati fans upset.

last round i went nv because it was just as fast, if not faster, and had more features. this time i went ati as it was just as fast and had more features. increasing speed doesn't give it more features.

and aside from the fact we've yet to see how they actually compare performancewise, while the GT is certainly a good value, it doesn't necessarily make it a better product.

edit: and this is coming from someone who feels the 1800xt was a better buy than the 1900xt - 90% of the performance for 65% of the price - and all the same features

 

[thilanliyan]

Hey KeysPlayr just out of curiosity, you said in the "volt mod" sticky that you would be using that tutorial...does that mean you bought a 7900GT?? If you did, why did you choose that over the X1800XT??

 

[moonboy403]

Originally posted by: thilan29
Hey KeysPlayr just out of curiosity, you said in the "volt mod" sticky that you would be using that tutorial...does that mean you bought a 7900GT?? If you did, why did you choose that over the X1800XT??

i'd think he chose the 7900 gt because of its "potential"

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: aldamon

Originally posted by: STas i said, i have both cards here now, if you don't want to help me look at both of these cards accurately, please troll somewhere else

Thanks for taking one for the team. I wish you had pushed your voltmodded 7900GT further before comparing the cards, but your numbers should be close enough.

what makes you think he can push his GT further?

he's already way over what most people can attain with theirs.

Link

These cards can go to 680~/1700~ at 1.5v with some better cooling. If you got more extreme cooling, they might as well hit 800mhz on core and 2000mhz on the vRam.

Most people stay at 580~/1550~ and thats at 1.2v just to be safe. Others are the ones who increase it to 1.5~1.7v and have there GTs at quite disturbing speeds.

And have it die in a few months. 1.5-1.7v is not safe for something that's supposed to run @ 1.2v. There's a reason why these GT cores werent chosen for the GTX: They shouldnt be running at those clockspeeds/voltages.

becuase your the resident electrical engineer round here right? stop stating what you think will happen as a fact that will happen. if people wanna potentially bust their cards..... let them its none of your business.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: aldamon

Originally posted by: STas i said, i have both cards here now, if you don't want to help me look at both of these cards accurately, please troll somewhere else

Thanks for taking one for the team. I wish you had pushed your voltmodded 7900GT further before comparing the cards, but your numbers should be close enough.

what makes you think he can push his GT further?

he's already way over what most people can attain with theirs.

Link

These cards can go to 680~/1700~ at 1.5v with some better cooling. If you got more extreme cooling, they might as well hit 800mhz on core and 2000mhz on the vRam.

Most people stay at 580~/1550~ and thats at 1.2v just to be safe. Others are the ones who increase it to 1.5~1.7v and have there GTs at quite disturbing speeds.

And have it die in a few months. 1.5-1.7v is not safe for something that's supposed to run @ 1.2v. There's a reason why these GT cores werent chosen for the GTX: They shouldnt be running at those clockspeeds/voltages.

becuase your the resident electrical engineer round here right? stop stating what you think will happen as a fact that will happen. if people wanna potentially bust their cards..... let them its none of your business.

it's a fact increasing voltages cause breakdown between electrical 'traces' over time. this increases as voltages are raised beyond design limits. it's not a matter of "if", but rather a matter of "when". while it could be months, it can also be years. it just on how much the design parameters are exceeded.

 

[Alaa]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
it's a fact increasing voltages cause breakdown between electrical 'traces' over time. this increases as voltages are raised beyond design limits. it's not a matter of "if", but rather a matter of "when". while it could be months, it can also be years. it just on how much the design parameters are exceeded.

i think he clearly mentioned this: if people wanna potentially bust their cards..... let them its none of your business.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
At least let him show some benches before criticizing them. Maybe he'll find ATI to be far superior and switch? Maybe he'll prove that the voltmodded 7900gt is a good value. Don't dismiss him just because he's clearly biased for NVIDIA.

I'm afraid that is not going to be possible, though I wish it could happen. The ATI guys are freaking because of ST's good o/c and "may" threaten the X1900XT/XTX. A 300.00 dollar card rivaling a significantly more expensive card's performance. Sure, you can o/c the XT as well. But I don't think that is what this is about. The NV guys are freaking because.... well, I really don't see them freaking yet, but they will as soon as the ATI guys do everything they can to dismiss the whole ordeal.

i don't think it's that way at all.

aside from the "mod" you have to do, how many do you think actually attain those clock speeds? 1 in 10? 2? 3?

what is the actual performance (comparitively) at 550mhz? 600mhz? 650mhz?

spending $300 on a card, is it a good value to get say, 80% of the performance for 75% of the price? 90%?

and which games do you reap those benefits from?

or how about texture filtering quality? is that umimportant to you? or the ability to have AA if you're running HDR?

balancing that equation is hardly conclusive, yet nv fans think if they can get close to the performance, it makes the GT a "better" card. in fact, it seems it's more important for them to be "better" then your claim it makes ati fans upset.

last round i went nv because it was just as fast, if not faster, and had more features. this time i went ati as it was just as fast and had more features. increasing speed doesn't give it more features.

and aside from the fact we've yet to see how they actually compare performancewise, while the GT is certainly a good value, it doesn't necessarily make it a better product.

edit: and this is coming from someone who feels the 1800xt was a better buy than the 1900xt - 90% of the performance for 65% of the price - and all the same features

I seems that GT's can hit at least 7900GTX speeds with a 1.4v mod, which is what the GTX runs. 7900GTX speed for 7900GT price is too good to pass up. I personally don't care much for HDR. I tried it in FarCry and HL2 Lost Coast. So HDR is not very "alluring" for me for this implementation or generation. Maybe as its improved and "perfected" over the next few gens "hopefully". Other people will swear by it, but I don't thinks its anywhere near all that. Image quality is a farce. Nvidia cards and ATI cards are too close to care. There are a lot of reasons why I would choose a 7900GT over X1800XT.
Price is similar, lower power consumption, less heat, less noise ( yes the GT cooler is noisy but not near the jet plane cooler on the ATI cards.) I tend to think Transparency AA is better than ATI's implementation and ATI has better AF. There are trade off's to make for certain. And a lot of it comes down to preference when decisions become hard.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: thilan29
Hey KeysPlayr just out of curiosity, you said in the "volt mod" sticky that you would be using that tutorial...does that mean you bought a 7900GT?? If you did, why did you choose that over the X1800XT??

I didn't buy it yet. So I "would" be using the tutorial.
Moonboy has it partly right. The GT's potential.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: aldamon

Originally posted by: STas i said, i have both cards here now, if you don't want to help me look at both of these cards accurately, please troll somewhere else

Thanks for taking one for the team. I wish you had pushed your voltmodded 7900GT further before comparing the cards, but your numbers should be close enough.

what makes you think he can push his GT further?

he's already way over what most people can attain with theirs.

Link

These cards can go to 680~/1700~ at 1.5v with some better cooling. If you got more extreme cooling, they might as well hit 800mhz on core and 2000mhz on the vRam.

Most people stay at 580~/1550~ and thats at 1.2v just to be safe. Others are the ones who increase it to 1.5~1.7v and have there GTs at quite disturbing speeds.

And have it die in a few months. 1.5-1.7v is not safe for something that's supposed to run @ 1.2v. There's a reason why these GT cores werent chosen for the GTX: They shouldnt be running at those clockspeeds/voltages.

becuase your the resident electrical engineer round here right? stop stating what you think will happen as a fact that will happen. if people wanna potentially bust their cards..... let them its none of your business.

it's a fact increasing voltages cause breakdown between electrical 'traces' over time. this increases as voltages are raised beyond design limits. it's not a matter of "if", but rather a matter of "when". while it could be months, it can also be years. it just on how much the design parameters are exceeded.

But in this case, the voltage is only increased to what a 7900GTX runs at stock. So the cores can handle it IMHO. I'm no electrical engineer, but it seems logical.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
[
Price is similar, lower power consumption, less heat, less noise ( yes the GT cooler is noisy but not near the jet plane cooler on the ATI cards.)

Both cards were reviewed, and both show a 50db rating. Seems to be the same to me.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/326/4/

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/329/4/

Its time for NV fans to stop pretending that the GT is so much quieter than the XT/X. Going by these reviews, its not.

 

[Praxis1452]

Well your argument wavers on what you mean by handle. I mean even raising the core to 1.7v isn't going to kill instantly but the lifespan of the card will be shortened a lot. in my opinion though overclocking on stock is what I usually do heh. Raising the core by a bit is fine but I really try not to do much simply because when I'm finished with a card and want to sell it you know after a year/few years you'd probably get a better price if the seller knows you haven't volt modded it. Kinda get what I'm saying? I mean a few fps generally isn't going to make that much of a difference. Anyway I would think nvidia bins by what voltage it can handle as well as speed... but I don't really know

 

[RussianSensation]

Have you guys ever realized that looking back at every generation of graphics cards we see this:

At the time Radeon 8500 comes out it is inferior to Geforce 3, but in 1 year they are equally as slow in latest games. At the time when 9800xt is faster, but in 1 year with new generation games, 9700pro/9800Pro and 9800xt are all equally slow (the only time when NV really loses with 5900 series). 1 year after heavier games like FEAR, COD2 and Far Cry come out, 6800GT/6800Ultra,X800XL/X800XT/X850XT/PE offer more or less +/- 1 resolution setting in these games. Forecast into the future, 2007, X1900XTX is just as slow at 7900GT because it is getting 30fps instead of 19fps in Unreal 3.

Imo, graphics cards should be bought for today's performance improvements (as seen in HL2 fiasco that made people buy 9800Pro/9600xt and then 1 year later those cards were useless), not tomorrows. Secondly, some users just feel safer without having to do hard mods etc and some users enjoy the modification aspect for which marginal utility of "re-engineering" is not captured into the price comparison. Although I tend to argue for 512mb, better shader performance for ATI, over the long run, it makes no difference. But sometimes games like Oblivion come out that change this since ATi cards do seriously outperform NV. Yet NV does well in other games. The only way to tell if NV is overall better than ATI or vice versa is to benchmark as many games as possible (and then pick the games one likes to play or average out the playability settings like most games can be played at 1280x1024 4AA/16AF without stuttering).

The real battle should be fought in general hardware and cpu forum for recommendations of graphics cards between different classes because we've seen too many times someone buy A64 4000+ and then not have enough money for a nice graphics card and order something like 7600GT because the importance of cpu in gaming has been widely amplified.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: aldamon

Originally posted by: STas i said, i have both cards here now, if you don't want to help me look at both of these cards accurately, please troll somewhere else

Thanks for taking one for the team. I wish you had pushed your voltmodded 7900GT further before comparing the cards, but your numbers should be close enough.

what makes you think he can push his GT further?

he's already way over what most people can attain with theirs.

Link

These cards can go to 680~/1700~ at 1.5v with some better cooling. If you got more extreme cooling, they might as well hit 800mhz on core and 2000mhz on the vRam.

Most people stay at 580~/1550~ and thats at 1.2v just to be safe. Others are the ones who increase it to 1.5~1.7v and have there GTs at quite disturbing speeds.

And have it die in a few months. 1.5-1.7v is not safe for something that's supposed to run @ 1.2v. There's a reason why these GT cores werent chosen for the GTX: They shouldnt be running at those clockspeeds/voltages.

becuase your the resident electrical engineer round here right? stop stating what you think will happen as a fact that will happen. if people wanna potentially bust their cards..... let them its none of your business.

it's a fact increasing voltages cause breakdown between electrical 'traces' over time. this increases as voltages are raised beyond design limits. it's not a matter of "if", but rather a matter of "when". while it could be months, it can also be years. it just on how much the design parameters are exceeded.

But in this case, the voltage is only increased to what a 7900GTX runs at stock. So the cores can handle it IMHO. I'm no electrical engineer, but it seems logical.

They can handle it, maybe. The fact is, there IS A REASON why those cores arent being used in the GTX's- they arent good enough. nVidia is saying, when they give you a 7900GT core, that that core you're getting didnt meet the specifications for the GTX, aka 650 MHz, and 1.4v. Therefore, running it at those settings and beyond is NOT 100% safe whatsoever, and eventually, whether it be in a year or two or longer, it WILL fail. That might not be so bad, who keeps the card that long anyway? BUT, alot of people dont seem to be happy with 1.4v and GTX speeds. They are increasing it to 1.5v, 1.6v, even 1.7v. Now THOSE are unsafe voltages, and by using them you're just asking for your card to fail in a few months. Sure, you can get XTX speeds out of most 7900GT's by taking the voltage up to 1.5v or 1.6v, but dont expect it to last long.