I don't know but I rather be more feature rich then not as well there is also the cost disparity to consider here 10US represents a whopping 10% here so it's not as trivial anymore.
I don't know but I rather be more feature rich then not as well there is also the cost disparity to consider here 10US represents a whopping 10% here so it's not as trivial anymore.
As I said before, if this is going to become a quantity seller, they're going to run out of perfectly fine X1900 chips with a single defective quad. And just like the other guy, you too are making speculation that if they have to lock quads they'll be losing money.
They won't, there's a built-in margin on these things - they're not selling the X1900XT at cost. They just won't be making good money, something Nvidia is with their tiny die on the 7900 chips. Many X800GTO's unlocked (the Sapphire GTO2's for example), proving they were locking functional quads once they sold off their defective ones (several brands X800GTO "1's"). If the X1900GT is to compete with the 7900GT at $299, than the X1900GT should be a good seller, meaning again ATI will have to repeat history and lock quads to hit a pricepoint. Whether or not they will find away to make them unlockable still remains to be seen (eg the 7800GT had a 'fused' quad disabled to make it a 20-pipe card instead of 24 pipes).
The X1600 PRO is just as good/better than the 6600GT.
(FROM THG)
F.E.A.R. 1024x768 4x/8x
X1600 PRO: 23 FPS
6600GT: 16 FPS
3D Mark 06 1024x768 0x/0x
X1600 PRO: 800
6600GT: 758
CoD2 1024x768 0x/0x
X1600 PRO: 24 FPS
6600GT: 21 FPS
BassBomb
Diamond Member
- Nov 25, 2005
- 8,390
- 1
- 81
stop shoving ur penises in everyones mouths guys, this isnt a ati vs nvidia thread
its about a thing called x1900gt u may have heard about it
hearing about bad quads vs no quad
im thinkin that, if its bad quads, thats alot of cards that might have been bad production x1900's which begs the question, did ati not make enough money with x1900 hence they putting the damaged ones on market so they can make some more money
its about a thing called x1900gt u may have heard about it
hearing about bad quads vs no quad
im thinkin that, if its bad quads, thats alot of cards that might have been bad production x1900's which begs the question, did ati not make enough money with x1900 hence they putting the damaged ones on market so they can make some more money
I assume we still don't know if x1900gt can be unlocked ?
Also, as of right now, the x1800xt 512meg can be bought for under $250, which has got to be the best price/performance for today at least ?
how does x1800xt 512 compare to the x1900gt performance-wise, if we assume the x1900gt cannot be unlocked ?
Also, as of right now, the x1800xt 512meg can be bought for under $250, which has got to be the best price/performance for today at least ?
how does x1800xt 512 compare to the x1900gt performance-wise, if we assume the x1900gt cannot be unlocked ?
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
I think they would be very close in performance. The x1800xt may have a slight edge. At higher resolutions or on games with large texture packs, the 512MB on the x1800xt would of course give it a big edge.
Powermoloch
Lifer
- Jul 5, 2005
- 10,084
- 4
- 76
i hope they can fit this thing with a quieter cooler. Seriously how much money would they be losing by going with a quality low-noise fan/cooling solution?
5150, i would disagree with you on this merit. soft or hard mod, overvolting period has a propensity to kill the cards (sometimes soft is even worse). again the conductive pen method is a tried and proven safe technique (note i did not say mod). how long a 7900gt or a x1900xt can sustain higher voltages than regulations remains to be seen.
back to the main topic...if this card can unlock the remaining 12 pipes, this would be a killer deal akin to the early unlockable ati gtos!
5150Joker
Diamond Member
Doesn't matter what you call it, it's a mod. The X1900's voltage is software controlled which means it can be turned back to stock settings anytime a user wishes (e.g. profiles). The card was also designed to handle additional voltages since ATi built a software tool to allow voltages up to 1.575v, the 7900 GT was not manufactured for higher voltages - it uses rejected cores and a different PCB than the higher voltage 7900 GTX.
wow, this is being a little presumptious isn't it? this is akin to saying amd/intel allows overclocking and higher voltages, otherwise it would be tightly locked, yet neither amd/intel, or any of the mobo manufacturers will suppor, much the less warranty this. overclocking/overvolting is a DIY risk (CCC/ Overdrive doesn't have capactiy to do overvoltage afaik. ATI Tool does, and is not a supported tool. Just because a user found a back end hole via software, does not mean it was designed to handle it, otherwise why aren't you running at 1.575V then?
yes, software control does have its advantages more so from the standpoint of adjustability not necessarily reliability (i.e. if you overvolt too much, you blow it up regardless of on soft or hard mod).btw> you are certain that 7900gts are rejected cores? can you give substianted facts or quotations from nVidia to support this?
5150Joker
Diamond Member
Originally posted by: ST
wow, this is being a little presumptious isn't it? this is akin to saying amd/intel allows overclocking and higher voltages, otherwise it would be tightly locked, yet neither amd/intel, or any of the mobo manufacturers will suppor, much the less warranty this. overclocking/overvolting is a DIY risk (CCC/ Overdrive doesn't have capactiy to do overvoltage afaik. ATI Tool does, and is not a supported tool. Just because a user found a back end hole via software, does not mean it was designed to handle it, otherwise why aren't you running at 1.575V then?
btw> you are certain that 7900gts are rejected cores? can you give substianted facts or quotations from nVidia to support this?
First of all, ATi created an application called ATi overclocker that allows changing the voltage via software. If they didn't intend for their cards to be designed to take extra voltages, they wouldn't have made a big deal about it during the X1800s release and released the software. There was no "software back end hole" found like you seem to presume. I don't need to provide proof the 7900 GTs are rejected cores, it's common sense. There would be no point in them selling fully functional GTX cores as a GT and taking a loss just like XT's are rejected XTX cores. Companies are in it for profit, not to make you happy with a lower priced card. One has to wonder how good your "review" will be if you don't even know the basics about ATis voltage tools.
no joker, i don't pretend to be all diligent about the x1900 as you are on the 7900gt, hence i check with other more knowledgable folks!
are ya getting a little nervous already on the review? don't worry, as i said i've been checking with a fairly unbiased x1900xt owner for my reviews (he has some of the initial results already as for overclocker, hmm seems particurlarly strange that you have to disable 2 ati services that disables overdrive protection and overclocking services in general to utilize the other tools. so again why aren't you running you card at 1.575V if you say its so safe? Business sense for rejected cores? Let's see you're overclocking to around 785Mhz on your XT. My X1900xt is pushing past XTX speeds with Overdrive on stock HSF no less? Lots of business sense right? Face it, you have no idea how either companies go about doing business (common sense..lol, just another reasonable excuse for you to extrapolate things to which you have no clue). The POPULAR rationale is that they are just untested cores, whereas the 7900GTX are tested (with the 7900GT OC being the rejected ones). That makes much more business sense in terms of productivity and output.
5150Joker
Diamond Member
Originally posted by: ST
no joker, i don't pretend to be all diligent about the x1900 as you are on the 7900gt, hence i check with other more knowledgable folks!
What's there to be nervous about? Pretty stupid thing for you to say.
Well genius, that's only for ATi tool. You don't have to disable any services when using ATi's own overclocker tool. :roll: I run my card at 1.575 during gaming and then it automatically sets itself back to stock voltages during 2D operations. Why would I want to run it overvolted when I have no use for such a thing? After all, it's not like I'm stuck with a permanent voltage mod like the GT where I can't choose to drop the voltage.
People overclock with CPU cores that weren't validated at high speeds all the time, does that mean they weren't rejected cores? Of course not. The same rationale applies to GPU cores as well, they must have failed somewhere during each respective companies validation and were binned as XT and GT parts respectively. Like I said, it's common sense.
after owning the x1900xt for all but 2-3 days, no i don't pretend to be the genius that some stranger off the net does about the 7900gt, to which he has never seen nor touched. :roll
so if you are running it at 1.575 safely then that begs the question, why doesn't ATI make this the default configuration?
and as an owner of a opty 165 @ 3.0Ghz cpu, i know the performance / reliability of so called rejected cores....so whats your point about the 7900gt vs. gtx cores again, since you just contradicted yourself?
seriously joker, it is very ironic for you to dismiss the merits of overclocking / voltmodding, etc. when you yourself are running on watercooling at a pretty high voltage rate. i assume you know what you are doing, as others that have performed the 7900gt volt mod and understand the risk/nuances of it. trying to argue a method of modding, especially one you are not familiar with first hand, is rather hypocritical...
5150Joker
Diamond Member
The 7900 GT is exactly the same card as the 7800 GTX on a smaller process. Given the fact that I owned the 7800 GTX since it's release up until the X1900's release, I know quite a bit about nVidia cards and the 7800/7900's pros and cons. For someone that doesn't pretend to be an authority on X1900s, you sure do make statements like you are - e.g. the "back end hole software voltage tool".
so if you are running it at 1.575 safely then that begs the question, why doesn't ATI make this the default configuration?
Again common sense. The 1.575v is the extreme voltage option available for enthusiasts just as the overvolt/overclock tool was made for them.
How have I dismissed the merits of overclocking? Are you drunk?
I can read, having the card in front of me and doing the mod won't make any difference. The end result and consequences would still be the same.
DeathReborn
Platinum Member
- Oct 11, 2005
- 2,786
- 789
- 136
Almost got something right there Joker. They tweaked the core increasing it's branching performance and altering cache sizes. That makes it a different core, but only slightly. The PCB (along with other components) itself is different too but I guess you missed that.
Yet another thread tainted through useless arguments of semantics. Why don't you guys take your bickering to PMs so the rest of us can continue discussing the X1900GT?
Anyone know when the X1900GT is due for release?
Anyone know when the X1900GT is due for release?
They are out @ zzf for $350, but not in stock. I can't wait for some legit reviews, w/ OC's and some user experience of unlocks, and such.
Yeah, where are the reviews? The only ones I see are from shady sites. I'm waiting for AT or xbitlabs to review them. From the way it looks, it doesn't seem to be as good as the X1800XT nor 7900GT though.
I hate to instigate ST and Joker into another argument here, but I think people should know something about the way companies are starting to distribute their cores.
Back when AMD had the 3000+ and the 3200+ come out, they were in such a rush trying to get them to the market that they never had a chance to really test the cores until the demand started to slow down (which, by then many in the overclocking community had already discovered the extreme overclocking headway). Those cores were great, and very good overclockers, but some were only able to get 2.2 GHz to 2.4 while others reached insane 2.8 to even (though rarely) 3.0. Once the company was able to really test those cores, more of them became very similar in performance and overclocking.
There was a rush for the X1900's and especially with the 7900's (EVGA waiting list....yeah). I don't think it was so much the fact that the cores were tested and "not approved" for the respective title, instead I think it was because the cores were not ever tested to begin with. Both cores can reach a great levels when overclocking, but even though the cores (at least one) can withstand 1.575 volts doesn't mean that that should become the default voltage. The companies weren't going to have a GT, a GTX, and a GTXY, or an XT, XTX, XTXY. There always has to be overclocking room, otherwise it wouldn't get as many sales. Both ATI and Nvidia are making technology that can run very, very, very stable at their recommended speeds and even stable at much higher speeds. They simply made good cores and use two different methods of acheiving the "monster" within those cores.
Since the release of the X1900 series, ATI has had a lot of time to make this 1900gt, so I don't know if it they are just plain "bad" XTX cores with some reconfigurations to optimize its reduced level of fuction, or if they are just surplus cores altered to help the company sales in the midrange area (particularly against the 7900 GT). I guess I too am going to have to wait and see if they are just bios fixes and ATI's version of the 6800's unlockable goodies, or if they are carvings of the statue.
Back when AMD had the 3000+ and the 3200+ come out, they were in such a rush trying to get them to the market that they never had a chance to really test the cores until the demand started to slow down (which, by then many in the overclocking community had already discovered the extreme overclocking headway). Those cores were great, and very good overclockers, but some were only able to get 2.2 GHz to 2.4 while others reached insane 2.8 to even (though rarely) 3.0. Once the company was able to really test those cores, more of them became very similar in performance and overclocking.
There was a rush for the X1900's and especially with the 7900's (EVGA waiting list....yeah). I don't think it was so much the fact that the cores were tested and "not approved" for the respective title, instead I think it was because the cores were not ever tested to begin with. Both cores can reach a great levels when overclocking, but even though the cores (at least one) can withstand 1.575 volts doesn't mean that that should become the default voltage. The companies weren't going to have a GT, a GTX, and a GTXY, or an XT, XTX, XTXY. There always has to be overclocking room, otherwise it wouldn't get as many sales. Both ATI and Nvidia are making technology that can run very, very, very stable at their recommended speeds and even stable at much higher speeds. They simply made good cores and use two different methods of acheiving the "monster" within those cores.
Since the release of the X1900 series, ATI has had a lot of time to make this 1900gt, so I don't know if it they are just plain "bad" XTX cores with some reconfigurations to optimize its reduced level of fuction, or if they are just surplus cores altered to help the company sales in the midrange area (particularly against the 7900 GT). I guess I too am going to have to wait and see if they are just bios fixes and ATI's version of the 6800's unlockable goodies, or if they are carvings of the statue.
yeah like everybody OCs their hardware
/sarcasm.
very few ppl risk blowing up 300 buck graphic cards to OC especially since the 7900gt need a very wierd volt mod involving conductive ink and what not.
even from the AT population i bet less than 50 % have dared to OC much do anykind of hardware mod.
the x1900gt is at least easier to OC since voltage is software controlled.
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Facebook
Twitter