• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Newegg is selling the X1600XT card!

$180? Not BAD, exactly, but not good either. Like the X1300, it is not for gamers at that price point. It's only value is the features.

The X1600 is like a X1300 for people who would like to play a decent amount of games but nothing major. My take on it, anyway.
 
Price point is better than I hoped, but still probably not a better choice than the 6800GS or GTO^2 (now reduced back to $209) that are available for $20-30 more, at least for those who game. For those who do not game, wouldn't the X1300 be a better choice?
 
Anyone want to explain why they can put the memory in this card higher than my 7800GT? Seems like a cheaper card wouldn't have as fast of memory...
 
Originally posted by: killershroom1985
Anyone want to explain why they can put the memory in this card higher than my 7800GT? Seems like a cheaper card wouldn't have as fast of memory...
Click to expand...

The X1600XT uses 128bit GDDR3... the GT uses 256bit GDDR3. Thats why it gets out performed by the 6800GS at almost all benchmarks.
 
Um yeah... this card is cheap because it should be, not because it's a good deal. So, what comprises the ATI mid range now? The X800XL through X850XT range?
 
The ATI midrangs is great - any GTO that you can find that unlocks plus the now cheaper GTO^2. Sadly the cards that constitute the mid range just happen to be last generation and not heavily marketed by ATI, but from a buyers point of view, who cares if ATI considers the X1600s the more desireable part? For those who don't mind a little adventure, the ATI parts are a great alternative to the 6800GS. IMHO nVidia completely owns the higher-end market as long as price is factored in.
 
i think nvidia owns the high end all the way to low end
but not the ultra high end
it is true that the 7800 512 gtx > x1800 xt
but you can hardly find a 512 gtx now if there's any
and the x1800 xt's price are generally dropping as well
 
Originally posted by: moonboy403
i think nvidia owns the high end all the way to low end
but not the ultra high end
it is true that the 7800 512 gtx > x1800 xt
but you can hardly find a 512 gtx now if there's any
and the x1800 xt's price are generally dropping as well
Click to expand...

ultra high end is occupied by SLi systems. 7800GT/GTX Sli setups own anything ATi offers "yet".
 
Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Originally posted by: killershroom1985
Anyone want to explain why they can put the memory in this card higher than my 7800GT? Seems like a cheaper card wouldn't have as fast of memory...
Click to expand...

The X1600XT uses 128bit GDDR3... the GT uses 256bit GDDR3. Thats why it gets out performed by the 6800GS at almost all benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Yup. 128-bit saves a lot of traces on the PCB; its a much simpler and cheaper design to implement, so they can afford to put very fast GDDR3 in there. And they need to, since 1400 Mhz GDDR3 @ 128-bit is just like 700 Mhz GDDR3 @ 256-bit (that's like what the 6800nu had).
 
Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Originally posted by: killershroom1985
Anyone want to explain why they can put the memory in this card higher than my 7800GT? Seems like a cheaper card wouldn't have as fast of memory...
Click to expand...

The X1600XT uses 128bit GDDR3... the GT uses 256bit GDDR3. Thats why it gets out performed by the 6800GS at almost all benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Yup. 128-bit saves a lot of traces on the PCB; its a much simpler and cheaper design to implement, so they can afford to put very fast GDDR3 in there. And they need to, since 1400 Mhz GDDR3 @ 128-bit is just like 700 Mhz GDDR3 @ 256-bit (that's like what the 6800nu had).
Click to expand...

Almost like a 256bit system running at half speed. I mean take a look at the 6800 vs the 6600GT. The 6800's fill rate was 3900 and the 6600GT's was 4000. Potential memory bandwidth for the 6800 was slightly highter than the 6600GT, but despite all this the 6600GT regulary outpermormed the the 6800.
 
Originally posted by: nitromullet
Um yeah... this card is cheap because it should be, not because it's a good deal. So, what comprises the ATI mid range now? The X800XL through X850XT range?
Click to expand...

Ati's midrange line up are the gto and gto2 cards, which is ironic because both were added as an afterthought to get rid of excess r4xx cores. Also, ironically, they are the best sub-$300 cards for pci-e as fas as performance/price goes (when unlocked and OC'd). But they are an older genaration, and for any SM3 nazi those cards are stone age technology. So eventually Ati will need a modern midrange card, especially when Nv releases the 7600 series, and I dont believe the x1600 has what it takes to compete in that arena.
 
Originally posted by: Bull Dog
Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Originally posted by: killershroom1985
Anyone want to explain why they can put the memory in this card higher than my 7800GT? Seems like a cheaper card wouldn't have as fast of memory...
Click to expand...

The X1600XT uses 128bit GDDR3... the GT uses 256bit GDDR3. Thats why it gets out performed by the 6800GS at almost all benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Yup. 128-bit saves a lot of traces on the PCB; its a much simpler and cheaper design to implement, so they can afford to put very fast GDDR3 in there. And they need to, since 1400 Mhz GDDR3 @ 128-bit is just like 700 Mhz GDDR3 @ 256-bit (that's like what the 6800nu had).
Click to expand...

Almost like a 256bit system running at half speed. I mean take a look at the 6800 vs the 6600GT. The 6800's fill rate was 3900 and the 6600GT's was 4000. Potential memory bandwidth for the 6800 was slightly highter than the 6600GT, but despite all this the 6600GT regulary outpermormed the the 6800.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The 6800nu outperforms the 6600gt in virtually every game benchmark I've seen at xbitlabs, not by alot or worth it for the price but its still faster.


 
the actuall chip of the X1600 costs just $45 to buy.
Although the card really is not the greatest thing ever it is very forward thinking. the chip is so cheap because of the saving in transistors with the multichanneled pipelines. its a shame its really crippled by the chocking 128bus, the 4 VS's and only 4 real pipelines. i would not be suprised if ATI actually comes out with a miracle driver for this card once the R580 is out with its similar pipeline designes........apart from the big rubber fist down its mouth.
 
Originally posted by: orangat
Almost like a 256bit system running at half speed. I mean take a look at the 6800 vs the 6600GT. The 6800's fill rate was 3900 and the 6600GT's was 4000. Potential memory bandwidth for the 6800 was slightly highter than the 6600GT, but despite all this the 6600GT regulary outpermormed the the 6800.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The 6800nu outperforms the 6600gt in virtually every game benchmark I've seen at xbitlabs, not by alot or worth it for the price but its still faster.
[/quote]

I stand corrected. Old gray cells must be playing tricks on me or something.
 
well the card does show its strength in newer games that have lots of shaders like Fear and Call of Duty 2, so for future games, its better than 6600GTs and 6800nu. It's vertex shading eclipses even the X1800XL. Though with most games out now where lots of texturing is being used and not shading, it is crippled. Price should continue to go down, and if it gets around 160ish, I may just sell off my 6600GT and pay the difference (20fps faster in BF2 than my 6600GT)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top