X1950 Pro 512MB vs X1900XT 256MB

[StrangerGuy]

See title.

 

[hardwareking]

The x1900 xt will be faster cause of the higher clock speed and larger number of pixel shader,pipelines and larger number of TMUs and ROPS.
No competition.Unless the x1950 pro is heavily overclocked.

 

[akshayt]

Get a 1900xt 512 instead. Or OC the 1950Pro, and get it

 

[Dainas]

Get the XT; dispite what ideas some people have been randomly pulling, the pro has too many pipes disabled to easily overclock "maintainably" to XT speeds.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Dainas
Get the XT; dispite what ideas some people have been randomly pulling, the pro has too many pipes disabled to easily overclock "maintainably" to XT speeds.

Actually, the X1950's are a a different core. There are no pipes disabled. Its the way it was made. Not like the X1900GT was, with disabled pipes

 

[tuteja1986]

x1900xt 256MB hands down the winner...

 

[dguy6789]

This truly is a hard choice. The X1950 Pro performs about on par with the 7900GT(Which is good by today's standards). The X1900XT will be faster as long as the memory does not become a bottleneck. Apparently, the X1950 would be a better choice for the long term, as it is fast enough to run any game at pretty much the same settings as its faster brothers. 512MB is more future proof than 256MB to put it simply.

 

[potato28]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
This truly is a hard choice. The X1950 Pro performs about on par with the 7900GT(Which is good by today's standards). The X1900XT will be faster as long as the memory does not become a bottleneck. Apparently, the X1950 would be a better choice for the long term, as it is fast enough to run any game at pretty much the same settings as its faster brothers. 512MB is more future proof than 256MB to put it simply.

But if you bought the x1900xt512, theres no choice.

 

[Dainas]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Dainas
Get the XT; dispite what ideas some people have been randomly pulling, the pro has too many pipes disabled to easily overclock "maintainably" to XT speeds.

Actually, the X1950's are a a different core. There are no pipes disabled. Its the way it was made. Not like the X1900GT was, with disabled pipes

really? and here i was thinking ATI had just decided it would be best to get rid of the crossfire cable allova sudden.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Dainas

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Dainas
Get the XT; dispite what ideas some people have been randomly pulling, the pro has too many pipes disabled to easily overclock "maintainably" to XT speeds.

Actually, the X1950's are a a different core. There are no pipes disabled. Its the way it was made. Not like the X1900GT was, with disabled pipes

really? and here i was thinking ATI had just decided it would be best to get rid of the crossfire cable allova sudden.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
This truly is a hard choice. The X1950 Pro performs about on par with the 7900GT(Which is good by today's standards). The X1900XT will be faster as long as the memory does not become a bottleneck. Apparently, the X1950 would be a better choice for the long term, as it is fast enough to run any game at pretty much the same settings as its faster brothers. 512MB is more future proof than 256MB to put it simply.

Except that the 256MB x1900xt already beats many 512MB cards like the x1950p and the 7950gt in most if not all cases, due to it's faster core. Just like a 128mb 6600gt beat out a 256mb 9800xt, the extra memory is of secondary importance to a faster core. Even for future games.

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: munky
Except that the 256MB x1900xt already beats many 512MB cards like the x1950p and the 7950gt in most if not all cases, due to it's faster core. Just like a 128mb 6600gt beat out a 256mb 9800xt, the extra memory is of secondary importance to a faster core. Even for future games.

QFT :thumbsup:

 

[AndrewL]

People have a hard time grasping the concept that more graphics memory usually doesnt mean better.

 

[40sTheme]

Although memory matters less, it's still very useful because the RAM has to work less for textures, etc and less hitching occurs. But in this case, the xt is better because it kicks the crap out of the x1950 pro in every way except amount of memory.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

the use of much higher resolution textures alone would make the x1950pro 512 mb a better buy. the difference b/w a stcok 256 mb x1950pro and a x1900xt 256 is not very much. a few frame here and there. add 512 mb on the x1950pro and it'll be comparatively faster.

plus the extra ram will be helpful at higher resolutions.

 

[Dainas]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

yeah I know, :frown:

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
the use of much higher resolution textures alone would make the x1950pro 512 mb a better buy. the difference b/w a stcok 256 mb x1950pro and a x1900xt 256 is not very much. a few frame here and there. add 512 mb on the x1950pro and it'll be comparatively faster.

plus the extra ram will be helpful at higher resolutions.

Well there is some truth to that, however pipe count tends to help alot more in higher resolutions with newer titles because; It seems developers care only about more and more complex normal maps and other tricks...not textures. As such the X1900XT would stomp the pro in most future titles.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
the difference b/w a stcok 256 mb x1950pro and a x1900xt 256 is not very much. a few frame here and there. add 512 mb on the x1950pro and it'll be comparatively faster.

plus the extra ram will be helpful at higher resolutions.

Not from the benchmarks I've seen.

HL2 LC
1280x1024 4xAA/8xAF
x1900xt 256.......75
x1950pro 256.....57

Higher res 1920x1200
x1900xt 256.......49.5
x1950pro 256.....37.5

Quite a bit of difference there. Even at the higher resolution. The 256mb x19 even beats the 512mb x18 in every test that I see. And early benches of Dark Messiah further back this up.

Don't get me wrong. I've noticed Oblivion using up 600+ megs of video memory (obviously over my 512mb available) when using all the texture packs I can find.

My opinion is that if you're going to spend good money on a 512mb card, spend it on something that is at least fast enough to matter. Such as the x1900xt 512mb. Otherwise, the 256mb version is a very good choice.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
the difference b/w a stcok 256 mb x1950pro and a x1900xt 256 is not very much. a few frame here and there. add 512 mb on the x1950pro and it'll be comparatively faster.

plus the extra ram will be helpful at higher resolutions.

Not from the benchmarks I've seen.

HL2 LC
1280x1024 4xAA/8xAF
x1900xt 256.......75
x1950pro 256.....57

Higher res 1920x1200
x1900xt 256.......49.5
x1950pro 256.....37.5

Quite a bit of difference there. Even at the higher resolution. The 256mb x19 even beats the 512mb x18 in every test that I see. And early benches of Dark Messiah further back this up.

Don't get me wrong. I've noticed Oblivion using up 600+ megs of video memory (obviously over my 512mb available) when using all the texture packs I can find.

My opinion is that if you're going to spend good money on a 512mb card, spend it on something that is at least fast enough to matter. Such as the x1900xt 512mb. Otherwise, the 256mb version is a very good choice.

here
512mb vs 256mb on xt = avg ~10% performance..


1900xt 256mb looks like the better choice here, but 1950pro 512mb is more future proof.
IMO 7900gto is the better buy.. best of both worlds. 512mb + top performer.

 

[Munky]

Let's put it this way: currently a 256MB x1900xt beats every 512mb card with a slower gpu, including a 512mb 7900gto. Also, the trend in games is toward increasingly heavier use of shaders, not so much on textures. And, higher res doesnt just require more framebuffer memory, it also creates a lot more work for the shaders. Therefore, I can guarantee you with 99.9% confidence that there will not be a single future 3D game where a 512mb x1950pro with 36 shaders beats a 256mb x1900xt with 48 shaders, regardless how high a resolution you try. All this nonsense of futureproofing yourself with more memory sounds like something the marketing n00bs would say.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: munky
Let's put it this way: currently a 256MB x1900xt beats every 512mb card with a slower gpu, including a 512mb 7900gto. Also, the trend in games is toward increasingly heavier use of shaders, not so much on textures. And, higher res doesnt just require more framebuffer memory, it also creates a lot more work for the shaders. Therefore, I can guarantee you with 99.9% confidence that there will not be a single future 3D game where a 512mb x1950pro with 36 shaders beats a 256mb x1900xt with 48 shaders, regardless how high a resolution you try. All this nonsense of futureproofing yourself with more memory sounds like something the marketing n00bs would say.

x1900xt beats 7900gto stock, not when OCed.. in addition, 7900 has much better cooler and its shader is more effecient.

x1900xt has the IQ advantage and it doesn't require OC to perform well.

If you want 512mb + near silent cooler, and don't mind OC, get 7900gto

if you want better IQ , get 1900xt 256mb.

read it here, 1900xt 256mb vs stock 7900gto

 

[thegimp03]

My experience with ATi cards is that they basically emasculate XT cards and call them Pro cards. I'd go for the x1900xt.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: beggerking

Originally posted by: munky
Let's put it this way: currently a 256MB x1900xt beats every 512mb card with a slower gpu, including a 512mb 7900gto. Also, the trend in games is toward increasingly heavier use of shaders, not so much on textures. And, higher res doesnt just require more framebuffer memory, it also creates a lot more work for the shaders. Therefore, I can guarantee you with 99.9% confidence that there will not be a single future 3D game where a 512mb x1950pro with 36 shaders beats a 256mb x1900xt with 48 shaders, regardless how high a resolution you try. All this nonsense of futureproofing yourself with more memory sounds like something the marketing n00bs would say.

x1900xt beats 7900gto stock, not when OCed.. in addition, 7900 has much better cooler and its shader is more effecient.

x1900xt has the IQ advantage and it doesn't require OC to perform well.

If you want 512mb + near silent cooler, and don't mind OC, get 7900gto

if you want better IQ , get 1900xt 256mb.

read it here, 1900xt 256mb vs stock 7900gto

Yes, I've read that review, and that one gives a clear picture of how the cards stack up. While the gto is a good alternative for someone who prefers quiet operation, the xt has the lead in features and performance, and I'm not gonna get into the whole technical discussion of shader efficiency, because then I could bring up branching performance, the fact that there are 48 vs. 24 of them, and none of that matters much in actual games. But sticking with the thread topic, the 256mb x1900xt would stomp all over the 512mb x1900pro, I dont see how ppl can recommend a slower card just because it has more memory.

 

[moonboy403]

to many people....they just look at how much memory a card has, hence the theory 512mb card > 256mb card

 

[josh6079]

x1900xt beats 7900gto stock, not when OCed...

And the X1900XT can't overclock? Why buy one off of the basis that one is overclockable and the other is stuck at stock?

...in addition, 7900 has much better cooler and its shader is more effecient.

What are you talking about? Explain.

If you want 512mb + near silent cooler, and don't mind OC, get 7900gto

if you want better IQ , get 1900xt 256mb.

Again, why do you think the X1900XT 256MB can't overclock?

 

[moonboy403]

for the record people....i'm getting 700/780 out of my x1900xt 256mb