Radeon 1950 pro or 7600 GT

[Chimera66]

Unfortunately I'd have to completely agree with the IQ statement. Honestly (and I don't think it's my imagination) my x1300 256 looked better with superior HDR mapping than my 7950GT (all things relative settings-wise), which is a bit puzzling considering the difference in the price and performance spectrum there. With AFx16 on and all the settings you can dial up in Oblivion with the 7950 without it slowing down (and I specifically bought a card that could run that game fast), I think it still looks great. But I also know that an equally fast ATI with the same settings would look better.

The only problem I had with ATI when I bought my latest card is that it seemed higher-end Nvidia's were more readily available at stores, at least around here. For some reason it's really hard to find anything higher than a 1950PRO anywhere except online. Not that 7950's were exactly everywhere, but they were at a couple places. 8800's could be found too, though they won't fit in my current mobo. CompUSA, Best Buy, Circuit City, etc etc all had some higher-end offerings from Nvidia, but 1900XT's and XTX's were nowhere to be found.

Why are those cards so difficult to locate? I like the image quality of the ATI's but I'm lovin' the raw speed of my 7950. If the ATI's were more readily available, I might've actually bought one of those.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Chimera66
Unfortunately I'd have to completely agree with the IQ statement. Honestly (and I don't think it's my imagination) my x1300 256 looked better with superior HDR mapping than my 7950GT (all things relative settings-wise), which is a bit puzzling considering the difference in the price and performance spectrum there. With AFx16 on and all the settings you can dial up in Oblivion with the 7950 without it slowing down (and I specifically bought a card that could run that game fast), I think it still looks great. But I also know that an equally fast ATI with the same settings would look better.

The only problem I had with ATI when I bought my latest card is that it seemed higher-end Nvidia's were more readily available at stores, at least around here. For some reason it's really hard to find anything higher than a 1950PRO anywhere except online. Not that 7950's were exactly everywhere, but they were at a couple places. 8800's could be found too, though they won't fit in my current mobo. CompUSA, Best Buy, Circuit City, etc etc all had some higher-end offerings from Nvidia, but 1900XT's and XTX's were nowhere to be found.

Why are those cards so difficult to locate? I like the image quality of the ATI's but I'm lovin' the raw speed of my 7950. If the ATI's were more readily available, I might've actually bought one of those.

Raw speed? LOL, if the 7950GT was so powerful, why a Folding@Home client runs so badly on the GeForce 7 series and wasn't released at all? Don't even dare to that the PS3 Folding@Home client uses the GPU, cause it doesn't, it uses the PS3 Cell Processors. geForce 7 cards have more texture power, but todays games and tomorrow games are going toward shader power, which the Radeon X1K series excels very well. The advantage of the 7950GT over the X1950PRO in textures power is smaller than the advantages of the Radeon X1950PRO over the 7950GT in shader power. Oblivion, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Half Life 2: Episode 1, etc are powerful shader games were the Radeon X1K architecture shines, even in the Lost Planet demo, which the X1950XT outperforms considerably the 7900GTX so badly. That's about raw power.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/los...emo_directx_10_performance/default.asp

 

[Chimera66]

Yep, I said speed. DX10 info is nice, but I don't have any DX10 games yet (and neither do you). That is because they're not available as of yet. I'm concerned with the games I currently have, not the ones I don't. I bought the 7950GT OC for two reasons: at $199, it was the best card I found for the money locally by far. I also bought it because the 8800 does not fit on my board, but that'll be fixed in the next month or so after I buy a different board.

Because it fits and the fact it was relatively easily found, the 7950 provided me with a stop-gap solution, and a quite powerful one at that. I don't consider the 7950 my wave of the future, I consider it the fastest card I found for what I paid, and one hell of an upgrade over an x1300, all things considered. My wave of the future is a new board with an 8800, which will pretty much make your squawking over the x1900's useless, as that card will tear any of those up. Or are you going to now try to tell me how the 1900's benched better in DX10 demos than 8800's? I don't really care about brand loyalty or kissing ATI's *ss. I want the fastest card I can find with a reasonable pricetag.

I have my sights set squarely on an 8800, so save your DX10 comparisons. An 8800 will romp any ATI 1900 series you can currently show me in a DX9 bench, a DX10 bench, or otherwise. You're also perhaps the first person I've seen that tries to cast the 7950 as a slow card. Most of the people I know that like ATI wouldn't even go that far.

 

[Chimera66]

Sitting here at work, after doing some more research, the cheapest 1950xtx I found was the Powercolor version of the card for $259. The 1950xtx, that is the card you mentioned, right? Well...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a...4130082&ATT=14-130-082&CMP=OTC-17exta6

On the same site, for almost the exact same amount of money (a whole $10 more), one can get an 8800GTS 320, which "outperforms considerably the x1950xtx so badly."

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Chimera66
Sitting here at work, after doing some more research, the cheapest 1950xtx I found was the Powercolor version of the card for $259. The 1950xtx, that is the card you mentioned, right? Well...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a...4130082&ATT=14-130-082&CMP=OTC-17exta6

On the same site, for almost the exact same amount of money (a whole $10 more), one can get an 8800GTS 320, which "outperforms considerably the x1950xtx so badly."

My squawking X1950XT will outperforms your card, that's it, even with my inferior CPU and 256MB Video Deficit which will hold back the card, with your superior CPU your card will have more room to stretch it's legs. And the 7950GT is not by any means very slow cards, they're super fast cards, just can't keep up in the long term when heavy shader are in use in the games because of it's poorly SM3.0 implementation. But for the time that it will happen probably our cards will be obsolete, even the old Radeon X800XT PE allowed me to run even Oblivion on High with 4x FSAA, and never dipped below 25fps.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/977/7...arks_half_life_2_lost_coast/index.html

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/bfg8800gts/7.html

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI5MywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/459/1/

Yeah indeed the 8800GTS outperforms my card, have better feature set and is an amazing card, but mines outpeforms yours!!! That's my point, no matter how you paint it. MY CARD is faster than yours, and in the future, will be even faster. At least I speak with evidence. You started first talking biased opinions of the 7900GS smoking a X1950PRO, Rollo? Is that you!? So quiet and feel confident that you got plenty of power for a while.


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

 

[Chimera66]

Lol dude, I never once said anything about a 7900GS. What the hell are you smokin' on? My original point was that I didn't think an x1950PRO was considerably faster than a 7900GT. GT, not GS. I even admitted the 1950 was a faster card. I just didn't think it was leaps and bounds faster than a 7900GT.

And as far as your card outperforming mine, it does, stock. I never said it didn't. Once we start throwing OC's into the mix though, yours is probably still a little faster, but probably not nearly as much as you think it is. Mine is currently clocked to 660/1610 without artifacting/crashing/overheating, which basically makes it a very slightly overclocked 7900GTX. Most reviewers (and forum members) have stated there's not a big performance difference between the 7900GTX and 1950XTX.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6156171/index.html?type=tech&page=7

Keep in mind this is a card I paid $200 for. OC'ing didn't cost me anything.
Given the fact you probably paid more for your XTX, and that the x1950's don't OC much higher than stock speeds, I'm not that broken up about yours being slightly faster.

You're basically bragging about the slight performance advantage your pride and joy has over my hold-me-over card that I won't be using in a month or two once I get my new mobo.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Chimera66
Lol dude, I never once said anything about a 7900GS. What the hell are you smokin' on? My original point was that I didn't think an x1950PRO was considerably faster than a 7900GT. GT, not GS. I even admitted the 1950 was a faster card. I just didn't think it was leaps and bounds faster than a 7900GT.

And as far as your card outperforming mine, it does, stock. I never said it didn't. Once we start throwing OC's into the mix though, yours is probably still a little faster, but probably not nearly as much as you think it is. Mine is currently clocked to 660/1610 without artifacting/crashing/overheating, which basically makes it a very slightly overclocked 7900GTX. Most reviewers (and forum members) have stated there's not a big performance difference between the 7900GTX and 1950XTX.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6156171/index.html?type=tech&page=7

Keep in mind this is a card I paid $200 for. OC'ing didn't cost me anything.
Given the fact you probably paid more for your XTX, and that the x1950's don't OC much higher than stock speeds, I'm not that broken up about yours being slightly faster.

You're basically bragging about the slight performance advantage your pride and joy has over my hold-me-over card that I won't be using in a month or two once I get my new mobo.

Well, you looked that you was broken up, and I'm not bragging, why? Cause I'm not an upgrade freak, I buy videocards and use them for 2 1/2 years cause I don't like to spend my check on computer stuff when I have other living expenses like gas, rent etc. I used the 9700PRO for 2 years, I used the X800XT PE for 2/12 years and I pretend to use this card for 2 years., and may be some, after all, I got a life. I'm smoking exactly the same thing that you was smoking when you said that the X1950PRO wasn't faster than the 7900GT. And yes, once you overclock that card, your performance will be close, and that's nice, I don't mind about it, but as far as you keep your ruding attitude, I'll go on. And by the way, nice overclocking!!

 

[UF Matt]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: Chimera66
Lol dude, I never once said anything about a 7900GS. What the hell are you smokin' on? My original point was that I didn't think an x1950PRO was considerably faster than a 7900GT. GT, not GS. I even admitted the 1950 was a faster card. I just didn't think it was leaps and bounds faster than a 7900GT.

And as far as your card outperforming mine, it does, stock. I never said it didn't. Once we start throwing OC's into the mix though, yours is probably still a little faster, but probably not nearly as much as you think it is. Mine is currently clocked to 660/1610 without artifacting/crashing/overheating, which basically makes it a very slightly overclocked 7900GTX. Most reviewers (and forum members) have stated there's not a big performance difference between the 7900GTX and 1950XTX.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6156171/index.html?type=tech&page=7

Keep in mind this is a card I paid $200 for. OC'ing didn't cost me anything.
Given the fact you probably paid more for your XTX, and that the x1950's don't OC much higher than stock speeds, I'm not that broken up about yours being slightly faster.

You're basically bragging about the slight performance advantage your pride and joy has over my hold-me-over card that I won't be using in a month or two once I get my new mobo.

Well, you looked that you was broken up, and I'm not bragging, why? Cause I'm not an upgrade freak, I buy videocards and use them for 2 1/2 years cause I don't like to spend my check on computer stuff when I have other living expenses like gas, rent etc. I used the 9700PRO for 2 years, I used the X800XT PE for 2/12 years and I pretend to use this card for 2 years., and may be some, after all, I got a life. I'm smoking exactly the same thing that you was smoking when you said that the X1950PRO wasn't faster than the 7900GT. And yes, once you overclock that card, your performance will be close, and that's nice, I don't mind about it, but as far as you keep your ruding attitude, I'll go on. And by the way, nice overclocking!!

Sounds like you have the right idea about upgrades.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: UF Matt

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: Chimera66
Lol dude, I never once said anything about a 7900GS. What the hell are you smokin' on? My original point was that I didn't think an x1950PRO was considerably faster than a 7900GT. GT, not GS. I even admitted the 1950 was a faster card. I just didn't think it was leaps and bounds faster than a 7900GT.

And as far as your card outperforming mine, it does, stock. I never said it didn't. Once we start throwing OC's into the mix though, yours is probably still a little faster, but probably not nearly as much as you think it is. Mine is currently clocked to 660/1610 without artifacting/crashing/overheating, which basically makes it a very slightly overclocked 7900GTX. Most reviewers (and forum members) have stated there's not a big performance difference between the 7900GTX and 1950XTX.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6156171/index.html?type=tech&page=7

Keep in mind this is a card I paid $200 for. OC'ing didn't cost me anything.
Given the fact you probably paid more for your XTX, and that the x1950's don't OC much higher than stock speeds, I'm not that broken up about yours being slightly faster.

You're basically bragging about the slight performance advantage your pride and joy has over my hold-me-over card that I won't be using in a month or two once I get my new mobo.

Well, you looked that you was broken up, and I'm not bragging, why? Cause I'm not an upgrade freak, I buy videocards and use them for 2 1/2 years cause I don't like to spend my check on computer stuff when I have other living expenses like gas, rent etc. I used the 9700PRO for 2 years, I used the X800XT PE for 2/12 years and I pretend to use this card for 2 years., and may be some, after all, I got a life. I'm smoking exactly the same thing that you was smoking when you said that the X1950PRO wasn't faster than the 7900GT. And yes, once you overclock that card, your performance will be close, and that's nice, I don't mind about it, but as far as you keep your ruding attitude, I'll go on. And by the way, nice overclocking!!

Sounds like you have the right idea about upgrades.

Heh, I just don't believe in upgrades based on the same generation, like 7800GTX to 7900GT or something like that. I upgrade once the card that I choose, is at least twice as fast and with better feature set. X800XT PE was 2 times and a half faster than the 9700PRO which was a nice card. This card is not 2 times faster than the X800XT in all scenarios, but the performance boost, image quality and feature set are well polished. Even though the Radeon HD 2900XT is a new generation of card, is a new architecture and is not 2 times faster than this card like the X800XT PE was from the 9700PRO or from the FX5950U to the 6800. I don't believe in 1.0 versions, (Since the Radeon 9700PRO) Example, 9700PRO (V1.0), when DX9 finally was widely used, it didn't have the power for all the eye candy, that will happen eventually to the Radeon HD and GeForce 8 which barely plays the Lost Planet Demo in DX10 (It may change in the future) X800XT PE, (V2.0 because it was based on the R300 but further enhanced and twice the performance) X1800XT (V1.0) X1900 series (V1.5), what the X1800 was supposed to be. GeForce 7800GTX 256 (V1.0), GeForce 7900GTX, what the 7800GTX was supposed to be. And so on. You got my point right?

 

[Chimera66]

I'm smoking exactly the same thing that you was smoking when you said that the X1950PRO wasn't faster than the 7900GT.

I did not in any fashion say the x1950 was not faster than the 7900GT. I said it wasn't considerably faster. There is a difference. It all really boils down to what somebody's version of "considerably" is. To me, the term "considerably" implies a 20-30% (or more) difference between one card and another. Like the example you mentioned between the 9700 and the x800. I'd say the difference between those two cards is quite considerable. The difference between a 7600GT and a 6600GT is considerable. There's just not that kind of a big margin between the x1950 and the 7900GT, and that was the angle I was approaching it from.

I was also not attempting to be rude to you for no reason. I was defending my position, much like Stumps defended his position against what I said. I'd expect anyone to do the same if they don't believe what someone else is saying.

The last thing I had asked was why the x1900/1950 series was so hard to find comparatively to Nvidia's higher-end cards, and instead of offering some sort of insight, you decided instead to try and tell me how a stock 7950 performed in some DX10 demo of an incomplete game merely because I said the 7950 was a speedy card. Then I mentioned overclocking, and here we are.

You have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to disagree with it, how's that?

And you do have sound logic in your reasons for not upgrading as often as I do, but I'm too impatient to wait a year or two before upgrading. You also make a good point about how all those cards looked in that demo. None of them appeared that impressive to me. I'm betting that'll probably change once the game is finished and drivers get better. Hard to tell.

BTW, thanks for the OC compliment. lol