X1950XT Vs. X1950 Pro

[JPB]

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=1&id=2122

 

[evolucion8]

http://www.gecube.com/products-detail.p...at_pid=9&prod_cat_id=166&prod_id=65116

This is the X1950XT AGP version, nice huh?

 

[gorka]

i still can't believe the XTX got spanked so soundly....and such a short lifespan.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
http://www.gecube.com/products-detail.p...at_pid=9&prod_cat_id=166&prod_id=65116

This is the X1950XT AGP version, nice huh?

yep

but i wonder what marketing decision brings out ATi's 'top card' in AGP then only offers it with *only* 256MB vRAM


the *same* company that offers x1350p with 512MB vRAM
:roll:

--i'm waiting to see r600 in AGP

--in PCIe ... whatever
:Q

 

[evolucion8]

Probably because of the already high costs bringing that GPU to the AGP Platform including RIALTO chip. I think that this GPU is created to represent the hign end, not the highest end, otherwise, they would release then the X1950XTX with 512MB VRAM, it is in the same league as it's PCIe couterpart and GeForce 7900GT, pretty sure it can even outperform the 7900GTX in some cases.

 

[swtethan]

$300 8800gts 320MB




only $50 more :Q

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
Probably because of the already high costs bringing that GPU to the AGP Platform including RIALTO chip. I think that this GPU is created to represent the hign end, not the highest end, otherwise, they would release then the X1950XTX with 512MB VRAM, it is in the same league as it's PCIe couterpart and GeForce 7900GT, pretty sure it can even outperform the 7900GTX in some cases.

assuming that is true ... what's the *excuse* for a 512MB x1650p?

 

[evolucion8]

The Radeon X1650PRO is far more cheaper to manufacture, probably that's why they choose to add 512MB VRAM versions, kinda worthless for such GPU.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
The Radeon X1650PRO is far more cheaper to manufacture, probably that's why they choose to add 512MB VRAM versions, kinda worthless for such GPU.

doesn't make *any* sense to not offer a top AGP card with an "extra" 256 MB vRAM ... and yet offer a cheapass card with a useless extra vRAM - but then there is nothing AMD or it's partners are doing that makes ANY sense ... now.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: evolucion8
The Radeon X1650PRO is far more cheaper to manufacture, probably that's why they choose to add 512MB VRAM versions, kinda worthless for such GPU.

doesn't make *any* sense to not offer a top AGP card with an "extra" 256 MB vRAM ... and yet offer a cheapass card with a useless extra vRAM - but then there is nothing AMD or it's partners are doing that makes ANY sense ... now.

I thought 512mb of ram helps with video editing and cad ect. ect. Mabe it's for people who don't need a high end gaming card but 2d/3d applications?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: happy medium

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: evolucion8
The Radeon X1650PRO is far more cheaper to manufacture, probably that's why they choose to add 512MB VRAM versions, kinda worthless for such GPU.

doesn't make *any* sense to not offer a top AGP card with an "extra" 256 MB vRAM ... and yet offer a cheapass card with a useless extra vRAM - but then there is nothing AMD or it's partners are doing that makes ANY sense ... now.

I thought 512mb of ram helps with video editing and cad ect. ect. Mabe it's for people who don't need a high end gaming card but 2d/3d applications?

the x1950p/512M would be *perfect* for them

as i said it makes *no sense* to not offer the top card with 512MB

don't worry - AMD viral marketing will point my catching their *error* out to them and we'll soon see it offered ... for $350



:roll:

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: happy medium

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: evolucion8
The Radeon X1650PRO is far more cheaper to manufacture, probably that's why they choose to add 512MB VRAM versions, kinda worthless for such GPU.

doesn't make *any* sense to not offer a top AGP card with an "extra" 256 MB vRAM ... and yet offer a cheapass card with a useless extra vRAM - but then there is nothing AMD or it's partners are doing that makes ANY sense ... now.

I thought 512mb of ram helps with video editing and cad ect. ect. Mabe it's for people who don't need a high end gaming card but 2d/3d applications?

the x1950p would be *perfect* for them

as i said it makes *no sense* to not offer the top carw with 512MB

don't worry - AMD viral marketing will point my catching their *error* out to them and we'll soon see it offered ... for $350



:roll:

I must agree at this point it makes no sense to offer a high end gaming card with 256mb of ram. It was good last year but new games will utilize the extra ram.

 

[apoppin]

marketing
:roll:

AMD needs to get entirely new marketing
[i'd fire the whole bunch of 'em if i ran it like a dictator]

i wasn't even *good* last year
:thumbsdown:

 

[imported_niknik]

Well, I had already convinced myself my skt939 AGP rig would be left untouched, and to buy a Duo2 system... eventually...

But the x1950xt opens up a whole new horizon to it. I'll just get rid of my old trusted 6800Ultra and change sides to ATI.
Heck, I might even upgrade my A64 3500 for a X2 4800 or Opt 180, and hopefully it will get me going for another couple of years.

And at last, I can start considering a 24" or 30" display - which was unfeasible to do with the 6800Ultra.

 

[apoppin]

i am ... after yesterday .. now running a 22" WS ... 14x9 ... not bad ... i see what "you guys" like about WS
[nevermind LCD]

i wouldn't have even considered it with my x850xt ... and i got a P4 3.4EE to replace my P4 2.80c

next is [probably 1>2GB faster RAM ... then i can 'wait' for more demanding games and cheaper HW to run them on
... probably late next year instead of late this year ... as i planned ... over 3 years ago
:thumbsup:

 

[Makaveli]

Why are u not running in the native res of your new 22 inch display?

 

[imported_niknik]

Originally posted by: Makaveli
Why are u not running in the native res of your new 22 inch display?

Most 22" WS TFTs are 1440x960...

 

[Makaveli]

I was under the impression most 22` Widescreen monitors use 1680x1050 like the Samsung 22' i'm using right now.

 

[imported_niknik]

Originally posted by: Makaveli
I was under the impression most 22` Widescreen monitors use 1680x1050 like the Samsung 22' i'm using right now.

You're right, sorry.
It was a momentary lapse of reason. At the moment, 1440x960 sounded "right".

That's exactly why I'm trying to pass all those "less obvious" resolutions and go straight to 1920x1200

 

[apoppin]

mine IS 14x9

obviously not as *nice* as your Samsung

but half as expensive