Because multitexturing maxes out at 10400 for 650MHZ, so your already 98% efficient there. The differences are within the margin of error. It's very hard to achieve 100% efficiency.
Because multitexturing maxes out at 10400 for 650MHZ, so your already 98% efficient there. The differences are within the margin of error. It's very hard to achieve 100% efficiency.
I don't think the personal attacks in his post where nessasary, but I do agree with some of the points he brought up. Most of us where looking for a card that would challenge the GX2. This card is a little closer than it's other siblings, but it still falls short or acheiving that. My biggest thing is the x1900xt performs around 6 frames slower than the x1950xtx and is selling for around $150 less. Well it's supposed to when the x1950 starts selling. So for price/performance it's not that great of a card even though it's the flagship and selling for less than flagships usually do.
These are the reasons to buy the x1950xtx
1. Crossfire users This rendition of the 1900 brings crossfire up to SLI standards with the price of a crossfire card as well as the performance on par with the non crossfire cards.
2. Power consumption If you are a buyer that doesn't have a high power psu and still wants a high power card this is the one for you
3. Better heatsink If you are a buyer that doesn't feel comfortable messing with aftermarket heatsinks then this card would be better than one of the older cards. However the price you pay is quite alot if all you like about the card is it's heatsink.
4. HDCP fans If you are a buyer that deems this an important feature then this is the only 1900 card for you.
Is the performance of this card better than the last one? Yes. Is that it's many selling point? No. And that's a little strange for a flagship card.
Cookie Monster
Diamond Member
- May 7, 2005
- 5,161
- 32
- 86
Performance are fine, but stability is the problem of crossfire.
ATi once boasted about crossfire needing no profiles. The current situation is that they DO. Supertiling is VERY ineffective and often sees performance decrease not increase. Now people have to go tweaking exe. files and crossfire to actually use it. Meanwhile, NV has over 300 profiles and hence SLi works on almost ALL games that we are firmiliar of.
I agree with redbox. The performance difference between ATis flag ship card and its second in line card is minimal. Its not big enough to actually go buy a X1950XTX over a X1900XT. X1900XT + 3rd party cooler could be more cheaper than a X1950XTX. Where NV has big performance differences between 7950GX2, 7900GTX amd 7900GT, i think ATI has too many cards with similiar performance on different price points.
ATi once boasted about crossfire needing no profiles. The current situation is that they DO. Supertiling is VERY ineffective and often sees performance decrease not increase. Now people have to go tweaking exe. files and crossfire to actually use it. Meanwhile, NV has over 300 profiles and hence SLi works on almost ALL games that we are firmiliar of.
I agree with redbox. The performance difference between ATis flag ship card and its second in line card is minimal. Its not big enough to actually go buy a X1950XTX over a X1900XT. X1900XT + 3rd party cooler could be more cheaper than a X1950XTX. Where NV has big performance differences between 7950GX2, 7900GTX amd 7900GT, i think ATI has too many cards with similiar performance on different price points.
So how does that make it unstable now?
It depends. The same can be applied to AFR vs. Split screen rendering or AFR2 with SLI. Some profiles work better than others and ATI can do AFR as well IIRC.
I thought drivers 6.7 and 6.8 fixed that? It would be nice if they did, but honestly if someone has the ability to switch a heatsink from a hardware component, renaming some files would be a walk in the park.
QFT. ATI would probably prefer to lose sales to itself rather than to Nvidia though when it comes to the mid-range to high-end sector.
Thats kinda funny but works.. "loosing" sales to themselves.. hmm LOL yeah the thing is even the 280$ 1900xt is very close to a 450$ 7900 GTX in performance, not to mention the features.. so yeah.. I think Ati is in a position to price everything the way the want to... the only card that stands on its own is the GX2, which is far too costly to be worth it
Yes is big performance differences between the 7950GX2, 7900gtx, and 7900gt. However it looks like Nvidia with their addition of the 7950gt is going to do the same thing ATI is doing. That card should perform at about the same as a 7900gtx or a factory overclocked 7900gt. Also don't forget we are getting a x1900xt 256mb addition too. I am just kind of getting tired of both of them just putting together some spare gpu's that didn't make specs or whatever and releasing a whole new card it just muddles up the market alot, and makes suggesting a card to someone kind of hard.
I really like the new low end deal from ATI how does a 10mhz bump make a new card?
Link
That just doesn't make any sense.
attack ofthe mods
why the 7950gx2 bieng compared to x1950 ? its a different price point and a different solution. single cards, better IQ, less significant hit of AA and AF, HDR+AA. if i could afford both i would definatly go for the x1950 over the 7900gx2
The reason we wanted it to compete with the 7950GX2 is we want our cake and want to eat it too. I don't know about other people but I would love a single card(single gpu) that would provide the IQ that ATI does with the speed of the 7950GX2.
Yeah but judging by the specifications once we found out about it at least anyone that had the idea that it was going to match the 7950GX2, had pretty unrealistic expectations.
No it's very doubtful that a stock 7950GT will match the 7900 GTX, it will close the difference between the stock 7900 GT and stock 7900 GTX to about 1/2 the prior distance but that about it, with the core speed being at 550MHZ, it will sit perfectly right between them at considerable distance. It should be about 15% slower on the whole compared to the 7900 GTX. Nvidia knows very well what it's doing. Though things get a bit muddled once you throw in Factory overclocked 7950 GT's and 7900 GT's. Using reference clockspeeds alone they are fine.
The problem with the difference between the X1900 XTX and X1900 XT, is that the situation is too similar to the X850 XT to X850 XT PE, the core clockspeeds are too close.
I think if ATI cleans up their line up a bit too this extent tthings are fine. For the most part I am ignoring memory bandwidth on the 256Bit Cards as they seem to have plenty.
Radeon X1950 XTX 1st Card 7% Faster then Prior
Radeon X1900 XTX 2nd Card 15% Faster then Prior
Radeon X1900 XT 512 (Discontinued and removed)
Radeon X1900 XT 256 3rd Card 25% Faster then Prior
Radeon X1950 Pro 4th Card 40% Faster then Prior
Radeon X1900 GT (Discontinued and removed)
Radeon X1800 XT 512 (Discontinued and removed)
Radeon X1800 XT 256 (Discontinued and removed)
Radeon X1650 XT 5th Card
Radeon X1800 GTO (Discontinued and removed)
Radeon X1650 Pro 6th Card
Radeon X1600 XT (Discontinued and removed)
Radeon X1300 XT 7th Card
Radeon X1600 Pro (Discontinued and removed)
Radeon X1300 Pro 8th Card
Radeon X1300 9th Card
Radeon X1300 LE 10th Card.
Nvidia is already fine their is enough distance between their lineup that their new SKU will not comprimise too much.
Geforce 7950 GX2
Geforce 7900 GTX
Geforce 7950 GT
Geforce 7900 GT
Geforce 7900 GS
Geforce 7600 GT
Geforce 7600 GS
Geforce 7300 GT
Geforce 7300 GS
Geforce 7300 LE
10 Viable SKU's. 9 Without the 7900 GT.
Actually to me it would make sense if there was an SKU for Nvidia's line up between the 7900 GTX and 7950GX2, since Nvidia is discontinuing the 7900 GT to my knowledge, the gap between the 7900 GS and 7950 GT is quite substantial.
I am going to go with the fact that people didn't know enough to draw the right conclusion, if you actually beleive NVidia/ATI marketing slides, for performance values go walk off a cliff. I am sure it won't kill you.
ATI is already damned efficient with the amount of bandwidth they have, giving them more would only produce limited gains. As well we know core speed is the primary factor in increasing performance, memory bandwidth is a far 2nd, I would place double memory size as a 3rd, as prior generations have shown 0 benefit, but the R520/R580 cores have been the first in a long while to benefit decently. aka Showing an increase greater then 0 on average.I think some of it depends on the game as to how much it will influence you. Of course core increases will do very well. However the main reason I want a 512mb card is textures. Some games with texture mods won't fit in a 256mb card i.e. texture mods in oblivion. Also hasn't the extra memory bandwidth helped the 1950xtx in some games like Quake 4?
Quake 4 gains about 6% performance with the additional memory bandwidth on average and this is with AA applied, as shown by Anandtech.
Yes, 512MB Vram has it's uses in some areas, and for a card for the X1900 level is acceptable to some degree.
Core > Memory Bandwidth > RAM Sizes has generally been held on average. It's rare to see that order shift.
The point people keep overlooking is that $450 is the MSRP, not the street price. Once the X1950XTX hits the shelves for a week or two, I'm sure it won't take long before it drops to $400 or less. Remember, the X1900XTX used to have an MSRP of $650 and now it goes for what? $350? It shouldn't take too long for the price to drop since there's good competition from Nvidia.
The extra 512mb ram helps the x1900xt alot more than the memory bandwidth. Look at the anandtech bench
Quake 4 has a 16.3% increase from the mb increase
Black & White 2 increases 26.0%!
those are the main ones about the only other one worth talking about is BF2 with 8.1%
Those are all just from the increase in ram. So while core>memorybandwidth>ram size may be true sometimes it looks like we are getting to a time in games where the extra memory really helps.
I really want to see how these x1900's will handle some of the texture manupulation that Quake Wars looks like it is bringing. It looks like the makers of that game are using some pretty high texture res, granted they are using some interesting tech to keep it from hurting the 256mb cards.
R520/R580 hardware has been the exception to the rule rather then the norm. It is the first hardware in a long while that gains more then 0% on average from enlarging the memory buffer.
Core > Memory Bandwidth > RAM Size, has held up very well before the advent of the R520/R580 Series, even G70 doesn't benefit as much as well as G71.
I would like to see if the same comparison on G71 based hardware.
Quake Wars might be interesting, though I wish to see the effects on G71 Hardware as well. 512MB VRAM doesn't seem to be doing that much for Nvidia.
Well let's see 6 FPS without know what it's relative too makes the information incomplete.
Let's see from the Anandtech benches, the X1900 XT 256 vs the X1950 XTX comparison.
It is 170US cheaper MSRP wise, though we have to wait till the X1950 XTX's price normalizes before we compare. Obviously price/performance wil be much higher on the X1900 XT 256, as were talking a 60% increase in price for less then 60% increase in performance.
I am not sure if this card will drop in price or not, it's pretty obvious this card is superior to the 7900 GTX but that sells for 430US.
The X1900 XTX's current MSRP is 399US, it didn't really drop to 354US till more recently with the impending release of the X1950 XTX and was in the 420-430US range. The MSRP has been readjustment fairly recently due to the X1950 XTX at MSRP 449US. There were 2 other point of MSRP in it's lifetime.
So were talking an increase of let's say 18% in Quake 4 across the board bu 25-35% in Oblivion, from the X1900 XT 256 to X1950 XTX, Balck and White 2 is the obvious anamoly, which actually likes 512MB VRAM buffers and actually gains more then 60% in the 20x15 resolution.
X1900 XTX
Release MSRP: 649US
Geforce 7900 Adjustement MSRP: 549US
MSRP Now: 399US
X1900 XT 512
Release MSRP: 549US
Geforce 7900 Adujustment MSRP: 479US
MSRP Now: 349US
We will have to see if the price drops, competition from Nvidia in this particular price range is not that strong, unless Nvidia drops the 7900 GTX to 380US or so.
Unless there's price gouging like most launches have. What's the MSRP for an E6600 Conroe? Can you find me one for that MSRP price?
After 8 months. Things don't just start price dropping in a week or two. The X1900XT didn't fall to that awesome price in a couple of weeks. I'd expect to see retailers raise the price above MSRP for a little while--they have to make a little profit too.
True, however I'd expect it to take longer than a couple of weeks.
I'm just trying to clarify what you're saying here so I understand it. You are claiming that the X1950XTX is 7% faster than the X1900XTX.
Here, you're saying the X1900XTX is 15% faster than the X1900XT, right?
Where are you getting that the X1900XT is dicontinued? Is there news that they are replacing it with the 256MB?
And this means that the X1900XT 256MB (is it even out yet?) is 25% faster than it's "prior" model the X1900XT 512MB?
Again, is this one out yet?
Some places are showing more than 6% of a gain there. But, it depends on who you believe.
Perhaps for the moment, but there has started to become a trend that indicates otherwise.
The list I provided for Nvidia and ATI in my prior list are just what I would like them to do, rather then what is actually gonna happen. So future SKU's are included and I made some general estimates on performance on average and based on fillrate and memory bandwidth levels. They are VERY general guidelines to performance. They don't take into account individual anamlous conditions. If your using my list if there is a discontinued SKU between the list then the prior SKU is the closet not discontinued one.
I don't think the X1900 XT 512 is a necessary SKU based on the performance increase it provies between X1900 XTX and X1900 XT 256.
To the performance increase of 6%, I had already expalined I was using Anandtech's figures.
The trend is changing if your talking about R520/R580 based hardware, but I have already addressed that in prior posts.
Here is likely the most probable occurance based on the information we have now.
Radeon X1950 XTX 449US
Radeon X1900 XTX 399US
Radeon X1900 XT 512 349US
Radeon X1900 XT 256 279US
Radeon X1950 Pro 199US (Future)
Radeon X1650 XT 149US (Future)
Radeon X1650 Pro 99US
Radeon X1300 XT 89US
It's actually been that way for some time.
As has been mentioned before, the flagship cards are NEVER going to offer the best P/P ratio. If you're on a budget (or budget conscious
) you shouldn't even consider such an option. You also shouldn't consider it if you're still gaming on smaller screens where you can't utilize the high resolution capabilities of these cards. Buying a $500 card to run at 1024x768 or even 1280x1024 is pretty stupid (IMHO).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter