Radeon 1950 pro or 7600 GT

[saitcho]

Here is my setup

CPU: Pentium 4c 3.2 800MHZ fsb
Mobo : P4C 800e
Memory : 2go

Is a 1950pro overkill for this setup or should i stick with the 7600GT?

Both cards are the AGP version.

Thx

-----
General Hardware is not the Video forum. Moved to Video.
AnandTech Moderator

 

[Eomer of Aldburg]

I still think a 1950Pro would be the best choice. What resolution are you planning to run at though? If its above 1024 by 768 Than the 1950Pro for sure!

 

[Kromis]

Pro

 

[Oyeve]

Pro for sure.

 

[saitcho]

My question was more about if the CPU will be able to handle those card.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: saitcho
My question was more about if the CPU will be able to handle those card.

It would be able to push the 7600GT. It would be slightly slower than the X1950 Pro, but since the price difference isn't that much these days, between those cards, I'd probably grab the X1950.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Do you plan on upgrading the CPU before purchasing another card? If so, go with the 1950 pro, if not, depends on the price difference, but Id go with the pro anyway

 

[golem]

If your PS can handle it. The pro.

 

[RussianSensation]

X1950Pro

 

[nerdye]

Of course the PRO is the correct choice, so I'm certainly assuming that your are on an agpx8 slot with your mobo, in that case of course x1950pro. A slightly cpu bound x1950PRO system is more fun than an equally/slightly gpu bound 7600gt system for negligible price difference.

 

[Summitdrinker]

it depends on the games you play and at what settings

a x1950pro isn't too much GPU for your cpu if you play at high settings

the x1950pro is long card at about 9 inches, creats some heat and likes a good power supply

ps, you could do a search on this topic, search for x1950 pro, go back a few months plenty of threads

 

[Stumps]

If you PSU can handle it, go for the X1950Pro, it's considerably faster than the 7600GT (and 7900GT).

 

[Paratus]

Pro

 

[Gusty987]

lol those cards are not even in the same class. x1950 will pwn 7600gt. The x1650 would be a more comparable card.

 

[Rottie]

nobody is tell you how much watts you need to run with Pro is at least 450 watts

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: Rottie
nobody is tell you how much watts you need to run with Pro is at least 450 watts

and 30a on the +12v.... for AGP models anyway.

 

[T9D]

I wanted to get the pro also. I have a 380 watt PS. Any miracle it could run the 1950 pro?

 

[HybridSquirrel]

8600gt
?

 

[Cookie Monster]

AGP, well X1950pro hands down. Its the fastest. Something closer would be the 7800GS, but that performs around 7600GT.

Not many choices but the X1950pro is the best performer.

Id say save money like me. Dont buy the X1950pro. Moving to PCI-e will be more worth it than beating the horse for the last damn time.

 

[Chimera66]

"If you PSU can handle it, go for the X1950Pro, it's considerably faster than the 7600GT (and 7900GT). "

Bzzzzt. Wrong-o. A 1950PRO is not "considerably" faster than a 7900GT. In all honesty, they are almost identical in performance, and in fact if the OP were to play any games that use OpenGL (Doom, Quake, Prey), he/she would find that the 7900 would kill the 1950, as ATI's are hurrendous when compared to Nvidia's of the same price range when running OpenGL games and/or games using the Id engine.

The 7900's also OC better (depending on which board partner you go with and what kind of cooling solution is used.) Given the lackluster performance of the 1950 in OpenGL games, I'd guess that means the 7900 is the more consistent performer. I'd rather have the card that performs well all the way around rather than the one that does well in some games and sucks in others.

It's just too bad the original poster doesn't have a PCIe, because you can get a 7950GT from Best Buy right now for $200, and that's certainly faster than a 1950PRO.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: Chimera66
"If you PSU can handle it, go for the X1950Pro, it's considerably faster than the 7600GT (and 7900GT). "

Bzzzzt. Wrong-o. A 1950PRO is not "considerably" faster than a 7900GT. In all honesty, they are almost identical in performance, and in fact if the OP were to play any games that use OpenGL (Doom, Quake, Prey), he/she would find that the 7900 would kill the 1950, as ATI's are hurrendous when compared to Nvidia's of the same price range when running OpenGL games and/or games using the Id engine.

The 7900's also OC better (depending on which board partner you go with and what kind of cooling solution is used.) Given the lackluster performance of the 1950 in OpenGL games, I'd guess that means the 7900 is the more consistent performer. I'd rather have the card that performs well all the way around rather than the one that does well in some games and sucks in others.

It's just too bad the original poster doesn't have a PCIe, because you can get a 7950GT from Best Buy right now for $200, and that's certainly faster than a 1950PRO.

oh noes not another Nvidiot...

Ummm we aren't talking about PCI-E are we..so my comment was 100% accurate...AGP 7900GT's (Gainward Bliss 7800GS+) are a complete dog compared to the AGP X1950Pro...not to mention the "horrendous" price that the AGP 7900GT's and 7900GS's went for.

I don't know what benchmarks you were looking at but in OpenGL titles the PCI-E 7900GT is barely faster than the X1950Pro (less than 5%) so I wouldn't say that the PCI-E 7900GT kills the X1950Pro.

you might want to do some research before making a half arsed first post.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Chimera66
"If you PSU can handle it, go for the X1950Pro, it's considerably faster than the 7600GT (and 7900GT). "

Bzzzzt. Wrong-o. A 1950PRO is not "considerably" faster than a 7900GT. In all honesty, they are almost identical in performance, and in fact if the OP were to play any games that use OpenGL (Doom, Quake, Prey), he/she would find that the 7900 would kill the 1950, as ATI's are hurrendous when compared to Nvidia's of the same price range when running OpenGL games and/or games using the Id engine.

The 7900's also OC better (depending on which board partner you go with and what kind of cooling solution is used.) Given the lackluster performance of the 1950 in OpenGL games, I'd guess that means the 7900 is the more consistent performer. I'd rather have the card that performs well all the way around rather than the one that does well in some games and sucks in others.

It's just too bad the original poster doesn't have a PCIe, because you can get a 7950GT from Best Buy right now for $200, and that's certainly faster than a 1950PRO.

The stock 7950GT is barely faster than a stock X1950PRO, even though the 7950GT is faster on those Doom 3 based games (Quake 4 and Prey runs almost the same on both), in intensive shader games like Oblivion, the X1950PRO outperforms the 7950GT by a small margin, overall the 7950GT is slighly faster, not noticeable, those cards have strong and weak points, is up to you to choose which one will fit better your tastes. http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=511&card2=471 The 7950GT is faster in texture heavy based games because of it's higher texture fillrate and the X1950PRO is faster in intensive shader games cause of it's higher math power, both have pretty much the same bandwidth, I would recommend the X1950PRO cause is gonna cost cheaper than the 7950GT AGP and the price difference doesn't worth the almost non existant difference, and of course, better feature set (HDR+FSAA, better SM3.0 performance and more balanced for future games which will rely on math power (Shaders) http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/386/12/

"We took a look at the 512MB model and that definitely has an advantage over the 256MB models but still, the X1950 Pro manages to position itself above the GeForce 7900 GS and even is darn close and sometimes faster than the GeForce 7950 GT. The difference can be explained by the 36 Pixel shader cores on the Radeon card, obviously the more shader intensive games will benefit from it greatly which most games these days are. So that is very impressive performance."

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150223 <<7950GT at $269
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi...790809+1067924896&name=Radeon+X1950PRO <<Between $199 and $239 (There's an HIS IceQ model which costs $289, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161082 <<they're crazy charging that much for such card)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814241049 <<For the price of the 7950GT and the HIS IceQ X1950PRO you can get the X1950XT for $259 which will smoke both (the $249 after rebate is no longer available )

 

[Chimera66]

First, I've researched plenty between the cards, and what I saw was that the various benches showed that as a whole the 1950 beats the 7900 in some games, and the 7900 beats the 1950 in others. Both cards are close, and I think it's BS misnformation to tell someone that a 1950PRO is "considerably" faster than a 7900GT. Faster? Sure, overall it does a little better in some games. To me "considerable" means 7-10 or more fps per sec over the other card in most resolutions. The 1950 is not generally 7-10 fps faster than the 7900GT in any bench I saw. What bench did you look at that showed this kind of performance difference between the two? I'd like to see it.

Second, if we're not talking about PCIe cards as you were so quick in reprimanding me, then why did you end your post with an entire paragraph devoted to them?

And as far as performance potential, a 7900 core will OC to levels a 1950 could only dream of. Overall a 7900 has greater potential when OC'ed and it's not really much slower than a 1950 at stock speeds. This is why I am having trouble digesting why anyone would tell someone else that a 1950 is "considerably" faster than a 7900GT.

By the way, the number of your posts does not in some way make your opinions more credible than anyone else's. I've had several cards made by both companies, incl. Radeon- x1300, x1650, 9200, 9550; Geforce mx4000, 6150(onboard), 6200, 8600GT, 8600GTS, and finally bought the 7950 several days ago after testing both the 8600GT and GTS which both sucked.

I like certain offerings from both companies, so no, I'm not an Nvidiot. I simply realized that everything ATI makes up to around the x1800-1900 range sucks, and I was tired of paying the kind of money ATI wanted for underachieving cards. $180-$200 retail for a 1650Pro DDR2? The point of my first post was not a debate over which company I thought was better, it was debating the fact of your saying that a 1950PRO was considerably faster than a 7900GT. Faster? I'll give you that. Considerably faster? I don't agree with that.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: Chimera66
First, I've researched plenty between the cards, and what I saw was that the various benches showed that as a whole the 1950 beats the 7900 in some games, and the 7900 beats the 1950 in others. Both cards are close, and I think it's BS misnformation to tell someone that a 1950PRO is "considerably" faster than a 7900GT. Faster? Sure, overall it does a little better in some games. To me "considerable" means 7-10 or more fps per sec over the other card in most resolutions. The 1950 is not generally 7-10 fps faster than the 7900GT in any bench I saw. What bench did you look at that showed this kind of performance difference between the two? I'd like to see it.

Second, if we're not talking about PCIe cards as you were so quick in reprimanding me, then why did you end your post with an entire paragraph devoted to them?

And as far as performance potential, a 7900 core will OC to levels a 1950 could only dream of. Overall a 7900 has greater potential when OC'ed and it's not really much slower than a 1950 at stock speeds. This is why I am having trouble digesting why anyone would tell someone else that a 1950 is "considerably" faster than a 7900GT.

By the way, the number of your posts does not in some way make your opinions more credible than anyone else's. I've had several cards made by both companies, incl. Radeon- x1300, x1650, 9200, 9550; Geforce mx4000, 6150(onboard), 6200, 8600GT, 8600GTS, and finally bought the 7950 several days ago after testing both the 8600GT and GTS which both sucked.

I like certain offerings from both companies, so no, I'm not an Nvidiot. I simply realized that everything ATI makes up to around the x1800-1900 range sucks, and I was tired of paying the kind of money ATI wanted for underachieving cards. $180-$200 retail for a 1650Pro DDR2? The point of my first post was not a debate over which company I thought was better, it was debating the fact of your saying that a 1950PRO was considerably faster than a 7900GT. Faster? I'll give you that. Considerably faster? I don't agree with that.

give it a rest...compared to a AGP 7600GT and 7900GT (Gainward 7800GS+) the AGP X1950pro is more than considerably faster..it leave them both for dead (in terms of stock performance).

I never mentioned any of the PCI-E models, which to be fair are pretty close in performance (despite your claims, the X1950Pro is still the faster card).

but you are right, when overclocked the G71 core is very formidable and performs quite well, my G71 based BFG 7800GS OC (@550/1350) performs almost on par with a stock PCI-E 7900GT.

However the AGP 7900GS and 7900GT (Gainward 7800GS+ series) are sh!t overclockers (not quite as bad as the X1950Pro however) compared to their PCI-E counterparts and therefor my original comment still stands.


wait a minute....Rollo is that you?

 

[lavaheadache]

And lets not mention IQ differences between the geforce 7 series and Radeon X1k's